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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — results are sorted by distance — but says nothing about what happens when nothing is within radius_km, whether radius is silently widened, or what fields come back.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core capability front-loaded before the input hint. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 no output schema, the description leaves the return shape unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether results include distance, address, or contact details. For a 5-parameter geo search this is adequate but clearly thin.

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 coverage is 60%: limit, category and radius_km carry their own descriptions, while latitude/longitude are undocumented in the schema and only loosely covered by 'the latitude and longitude of a town or address'. The description adds no semantics for category or radius, so it does not compensate for the gap but doesn't need to.

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 anthroposophical organizations') plus the result ordering ('closest to a point, sorted by distance'), which separates it from text-oriented siblings like search_directory and get_listing. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the geo-proximity framing rather than stated.

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?

'Use the latitude and longitude of a town or address' hints at the intended input workflow but is really an input hint, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_directory or get_listing, and no exclusion such as 'do not use for name lookups'.

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