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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates read-only lookup behavior, the official-address scope, and that results include distance, but it leaves unspecified details such as result ordering, truncation by max_results, and the exact address fields returned.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the data source and distance output follow, and the use case closes it efficiently.

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?

For a simple geospatial lookup with fully documented parameters, the description plus schema provides enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the main result attribute (distance). Without an output schema, a slightly richer return-shape description would help, but the current definition is still sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema already explains latitude, longitude, radius_m, and max_results with bounds and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning radius, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find all official addresses within a radius of a coordinate' and identifies the data source (Kartverket). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like find_place_names_near and find_stops_near by making 'official addresses' the unique target.

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 explicitly gives the use case: 'Good for what is at this location?', which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear enough without explicit sibling routing.

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