Neighbourhood summary of a property

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the response (human-readable summary plus structured facts), but says nothing about latency, caching, or the open-world dependency implied by openWorldHint.

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: the return contract first, then the intended use. Every clause earns its place and nothing is front-loaded incorrectly.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so at a high level by naming the summary and the specific fact categories. It is nearly complete for a read-only lookup; only the contrast with sibling tools and any format/pagination details are missing.

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%, so all four parameters (latitude, longitude, language, country) are already documented with ranges and example codes. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as coordinate precision or how language/country interact, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: returns a neighbourhood summary plus structured facts (nearest school, supermarket, transport) around a location. This is clearly distinguishable from a generic POI lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the overlapping siblings yatmo_get_nearby_pois or yatmo_get_nearest_by_category.

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 one contextual use case ('explain why a property is well situated'), which implies usage but offers no when-not conditions and never names an alternative sibling tool. An agent must infer the boundary against yatmo_get_nearby_pois and yatmo_get_nearest_by_category on its own.

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