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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value with "Reads the shared public snapshot" (hinting the data source may be a cached/shared dataset) and the warning that a pickup point is not a car-availability guarantee — a domain caveat not present in any annotation.

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?

Three short sentences plus two compact JSON examples, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the caution placed before the examples. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

The output schema means returns need no explanation, and the shared-snapshot note covers provenance. But with 5 optional parameters, 40% schema coverage, and zero documentation anywhere for market, limit and radius_m semantics, an agent is left guessing on real knobs that affect results.

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 only 40%, and the description only implicitly covers city, near, limit and radius_m through two examples, which show format but not meaning (e.g. what radius_m measures from, what limit bounds). The market parameter is never mentioned in the description and has no schema description either.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "find physical pickup desks near a city or location," which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It never names a sibling, but the other tools are clearly reservation/offer-oriented, so confusion is unlikely.

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 to find..." gives the triggering condition and the examples show two valid call shapes (city vs. near), but there is no explicit "when not to use" or pointer to an alternative tool for cases like getting a full offer with a pickup point attached. The caveat about availability is interpretive guidance, not routing guidance.

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