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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them: results are grouped by kind, sorted by distance, and each carries a dog rule plus citation. It does not discuss result volume, pagination, or what happens when place and near are both supplied.

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 alias identity and the core outcome, then the routing guidance, then compact examples. Slightly long due to the enumerated list of place kinds and three examples, but every element carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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-structure explanation is unnecessary; the description nonetheless tells the agent results come grouped and distance-sorted with rules and citations. Parameters are fully schema-documented, safety is annotation-covered, and routing plus examples complete the picture for a 7-param tool.

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 modestly beyond by clarifying that a town or county name alone suffices (no coordinates needed) and by demonstrating realistic combinations of place/near/types/radius_miles in examples, which helps an agent compose calls even though it does not re-specify bounds or defaults.

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 the specific verb+resource (returns dog-related places near a town/county/point), names the kinds grouped and sorted by distance with rules and citations, and explicitly identifies itself as the alias of dogpolicies_near kept for older clients. An agent can distinguish it from dogpolicies_search_places or find_hotels without opening a schema.

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 says it is "the one call to make when a user names a place and asks 'what can I do with my dog there?'" and routes three sibling cases (find_hotels for weight/budget, plan_trip for a whole stay, search_places for one kind with filters). Three worked examples further pin down when each parameter combination applies.

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