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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it resolves names first, reports unknown rather than unsafe for locations without scan data, and explains that latitude/longitude sharply improves matching. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies open-world behavior.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with examples, and each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, when to use it, and how to improve results plus the unknown/unsafe distinction. No filler or repetition of obvious schema details.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the key return behavior: scan status per match and unknown for no data. It covers input strategy (name/address, optional coordinates), usage context, and safety interpretation. It could be more explicit about the full response structure or pagination, but the core behavior is sufficiently complete for a read-only search 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?

The schema covers 83% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples for the 'query' parameter and explaining that latitude/longitude 'sharply improves matching', which is not in the schema. The remaining parameters (days, limit, response_format) are adequately described in the schema.

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 ('Find') and resource ('a location by NAME or address'), includes concrete examples, and clearly distinguishes from siblings by targeting name/address search rather than Place ID lookups. It states exactly what the tool does and what it returns (scan status).

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use this when you know what a place is called but do not have its Google Place ID.' It also advises when to pass latitude/longitude to improve matching. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use this tool, 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.