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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: results are nearest-first and distances are straight-line kilometres, which tells the agent how to interpret and order the output.

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 tight sentences that lead with the resource and ordering, then the one parameter that needs explanation. No filler, no restatement of the title or annotations.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is partially complete: the agent knows what comes back and how it is sorted, but is left to guess the accepted place_type vocabulary, pagination limits, and behaviour when a hotel has no nearby places.

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, and it only partly does: it explains that place_type filters by kind and that hotel_id anchors the search, but never enumerates valid place_type values and says nothing about page/page_size pagination.

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?

It states a specific verb (implicit: retrieve) plus an enumerated resource set — attractions, restaurants, airports, landmarks — and the ordering/distance semantics. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_nearby_hotels by excluding hotels from the type list, but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that hotel_id must come from get_hotel_details or search_hotels), and no mention of when to prefer search_hotels_by_geo or get_nearby_hotels. Usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'near a hotel'.

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