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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the output layout (one row per fact, one column per place, citations for every place) and the inclusion of confidence, freshness and confirmer provenance — information not visible from 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?

Front-loaded with the user's question and the comparison scope, then usage and example in a compact second paragraph. Slightly redundant in repeating the 2–6 range already enforced by the schema, but otherwise every sentence carries content.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description correctly focuses on comparison semantics and provenance rather than return-value mechanics. What an agent needs to select and invoke it is essentially all present; only explicit sibling exclusions are missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by restating the 2–6 cardinality constraint in prose and supplying a concrete ids example (["carmel-beach","asilomar-state-beach"]), which clarifies id format in a way the schema's plain string type does not.

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?

Opens with a specific question-form verb framing ('Compare two to six places') and enumerates exactly which attributes are compared (dogs allowed, leash rule, pet fee, weight limit, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from dogpolicies_get_place (single place) and dogpolicies_search_places (candidate discovery).

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'Use after a search returned candidates and the user asks "which one?"' and notes that ids come from any search result, with a concrete example. No explicit when-not clause (e.g., 'do not use for a single place, use get_place'), so it falls 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.