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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: sorting changes based on `near` (distance) versus city (cheapest first, respecting `power_class`), live free-charge-point freshness, inclusion of a `source_url` to cite, and Lithuania-only coverage.

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?

Four compact sentences with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded, then sorting behavior, then citation value, then coverage. Every sentence contributes an actionable fact for invocation or interpretation.

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?

For a 9-parameter nested search tool with no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, sort behavior, returned data categories, and citation support. It stops short of explaining pagination or total-count behavior, but the schema supplies the `limit` bound, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining how the `near`/`city` choice alters result ordering and how `power_class` scopes that ordering. It also reinforces the geographic limit ('Coverage: Lithuania only') that constrains the `city` parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find public EV charging stations in Lithuania' with two search modes (near point or city). It distinguishes itself from the price-focused siblings by focusing on station discovery and listing returned fields, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

The description implies usage by stating the two search modes ('near a point' or 'in a city') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools like cheapest_charging or operator_tariffs. Since find_stations also includes prices, an agent receives no rule for choosing between station discovery and price comparison tools.

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