Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the expected return fields and demonstrating a concrete invocation, without repeating or contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the optional locational behavior, then the output, and closes with a clear example. Every sentence earns its place, and the example makes the expected call shape concrete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich parameter schema, safety annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers the required query parameter, optional location modifiers, output fields, and provides a call example. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a useful example and return-field list, but it does not introduce semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for points of interest (POIs)' and enumerates businesses, landmarks, restaurants, gas stations. It also states what can be supplied (name/category, optional lat/lon/radius) and what is returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from geocoding tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: search by name or category and optionally constrain to a center and radius. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as geocode, reverse_geocode, or search_within, but the described use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.