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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: results come from OpenStreetMap and the place string is geocoded automatically, which explains behavior the schemas do not.

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?

Purpose and the input contract are front-loaded in the first two sentences; the example queries follow as compact illustrations of intent. No sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden, and it does not say what a result contains (name, address, distance). Everything needed to invoke the tool correctly is present, but the result shape is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by clarifying that 'place' accepts a city, address, or landmark and that geocoding is automatic, adding usage nuance the schema's terse property description does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (pet services), enumerates the covered categories (vets, emergency vets, dog parks, pet stores, shelters), and names the data source. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like vet_adverse_events or animal_drug_search.

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?

Example queries ("emergency vet near Austin TX", "dog parks near me") make the triggering intent obvious and the geocoding note explains the required input. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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