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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the PostGIS distance mechanism, that distance ordering is the default, and that an empty array means nothing active matched within the radius — a useful signal for interpreting results.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition before the mechanics, which is the right ordering, and every sentence is informative. The 'using PostGIS distance search' clause is mild implementation detail that an agent doesn't need to select the tool, but it is not wasteful enough to hurt.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still covers the one interpretive case that matters (empty array). With annotations and a complete schema, the definition leaves no functional gap for a geospatial search call; only an explicit sibling pointer is absent.

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 every parameter including bounds, defaults and enum values is already documented. The description reinforces a few points (radius_km required, kilometers, lat/long as separate decimal degrees, category narrowing) but adds no syntax or semantics the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Finds active listings near a geographic point using PostGIS distance search') and the geospatial scoping implicitly separates it from the general search_listings sibling. However, it never names an alternative sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives concrete invocation triggers with multilingual user phrasings ('מה מוכרים לידי', 'איש מקצוע באזור') and a clear when-not to act: if location is unknown, ask for a city or area instead of guessing. No alternative tool is named for the case where the user wants a non-geographic search, which keeps it 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.