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 known. The description adds the return payload (address, hours, service capabilities), but says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits, which the paginated parameters imply. Useful but not rich given the annotation 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing guidance immediately following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 values need no explanation; the description is nearly complete for a geo-search tool. Minor gap: no hint about result volume/pagination behavior, though the schema parameters cover it.

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 latitude, longitude, radius, page, and page_size are already documented in the schema. The description only implies lat/long as the search center and adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Chipotle restaurants') plus the geographic qualifier ('near a latitude and longitude') and the returned fields (address, hours, service capabilities). This clearly distinguishes it from chipotle_restaurant and chipotle_menu.

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 routes the agent: use chipotle_restaurant for one known location's full record, chipotle_menu for menu items. The selection condition (proximity search vs known location vs menu) is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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