Points of interest around a property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds category disambiguation (school vs. nursery) but says nothing about result ordering, truncation behavior, or what happens when the radius yields no matches – gaps the annotations don't fill.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the category detail, and no filler. Only mild redundancy between the general 'filtered by category' clause and the subsequent category glossary.

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 7-parameter, 4-required geo query with no output schema, the description covers purpose and category semantics but omits the return shape and what fields each POI carries, plus any note on ordering or result-count behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose output the agent must reason about.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: it enumerates the valid category tokens and disambiguates two overlapping ones ('school' excludes daycare, 'nursery' is crèches/daycare only). That is real added meaning for a parameter the schema documents only as free-form strings ('Category tokens to keep; empty = all') with no enum. It does not add anything on radiusMeters/maxResults, but the schema's capping notes suffice there.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Lists points of interest around a property' with the optional category filter and radius scoping stated up front. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the sibling tools (yatmo_get_nearest_by_category, yatmo_get_location_summary), so the reader can't tell from the text alone which tool to pick for a proximity query.

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?

The description explains what can be filtered but never states when to use this tool versus yatmo_get_nearest_by_category or yatmo_get_accessibility_profile, which are clearly adjacent in scope. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use guidance.

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