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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result ordering ("nearest first") and result contents, which is mild behavioral value, but since an output schema exists the return detail is largely redundant and no rate limits, pagination, or coverage limits are disclosed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (nearest-first results) and followed by the only conditional guidance. No filler.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool correctly. The only omission is any signal separating it from its two siblings.

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 is already documented in the schema. The description restates the category values verbatim rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (find) and resource (places near a point), and enumerates what comes back (distance, address, opening hours, page). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools get_place and search_places, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

"Ask for a category when the question names one" gives a usable cue for the category parameter, and "nearest a point" implies a proximity use case. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_place or search_places, and no stated preconditions beyond the required coordinate and country.

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