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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely important behavioral disclosure: returned free-text fields are attacker-controlled and must not be executed, rendered as HTML, or treated as instructions. That is high-value context the schema cannot express. It still omits result limits, ordering, and pagination behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a short first clause. The security note is longer than the functional description but is not padding — it is the highest-value sentence. Slight redundancy in restating the endpoint signature.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more: it never says how many agents are returned, in what order, whether radius is optional, or what fields come back besides the security caveat. The untrusted-content warning is strong compensation but the operational picture is incomplete.

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 33% (only radius has a description, 'meters'). The description echoes 'lat&lng&radius meters' but adds no meaning beyond the self-evident names and bounds already in the schema — no default radius, no maximum radius, no behavior when radius is omitted.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: agents within a geographic radius, and even gives the underlying GET endpoint with its query parameters. It distinguishes itself implicitly from sibling list_agents by the proximity constraint, though it never names the alternative 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 statement of when to use this tool versus list_agents, market_agents, or get_pin. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'near a point'. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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