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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them, the distance-based sort order, but says nothing about how many warehouses are returned, whether the search radius is bounded, or units.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the scoping constraint and the sort behavior front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter geo lookup with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns (warehouses, distance-ordered). Only minor gaps remain, such as result count and radius behavior, which an agent might need before calling.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it only echoes the parameter names ('near a latitude/longitude') without adding format, coordinate system, or decimal-precision guidance. The two parameters are numerically self-evident, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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+resource ('Costco warehouses') with the scope qualifier 'near a latitude/longitude' and the ordering rule 'sorted by distance.' It is clearly distinct from catalog siblings like costco_product or costco_search, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself.

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 'near a lat/long' phrasing implies the use case (proximity lookup), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of an alternative for name-based or general Costco lookups among the many sibling tools.

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