Accessibility profile of a property

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious disclosure — the view is 'synthetic' — which tells the agent the data is not authoritative and should be caveated, plus it names the two fields returned. No statement about distance units or resolution, minor.

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 filler, and the most important clause (what is returned) is front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing is repeated from 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name both returned facts. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly and interpret the result, though it stops short of unit/format detail for the distance and of any sibling disambiguation.

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%: country, language, latitude and longitude each carry format examples and range bounds. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a synthetic accessibility view of a property') and enumerates the payload (public-transport presence, nearest stop distance), which is enough to distinguish it from nearby_pois or location_summary by content. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the output content is specific enough to route correctly.

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?

It gives a concrete usage trigger: 'Use it to answer questions like is this property practical without a car?'. That is clear context for when to reach for this tool, though it offers no exclusions or named alternatives versus yatmo_get_nearby_pois or yatmo_get_location_summary.

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