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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it states the data source (Overpass API) and the fields included in results (name, coordinates, address, phone, website, opening hours). It does not contradict 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 concise, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence, followed by details on filtering, result contents, and example use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers radius limits, filter options, and result fields. It also mentions data sourcing, which helps set expectations. It lacks explicit error handling or pagination notes, but these are not critical for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds semantics by explaining the optional amenity filter and the default behavior when no filter is given (returns all amenities, tourism, and shops). It also clarifies the radius limit, which the schema already documents but the description reinforces with examples.

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 clearly states it finds OpenStreetMap points of interest within a configurable radius around a coordinate. It specifies the resource (POIs) and the action (find), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like overpass.search.amenities by covering all POIs (amenities, tourism, shops) rather than a specific category. It's specific, not a tautology.

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 provides concrete use cases (e.g., 'what is near me?', 'restaurants within 500 m of this hotel') that imply when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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