Search places near a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (names + short descriptions, or place_ids in detailed mode), the important non-obvious trait that results are geographically biased rather than global, and the rationale for the two-pass pattern. It omits result-count limits, pagination, and what happens when the trip_key is invalid.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose then usage then workflow; each sentence contributes something. The final paragraph is slightly workflow-oriented rather than descriptive, but it is not padding.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result content, geographic bias, and the concise/detailed progression adequately. Remaining gaps (result volume, failure modes, behavior on ambiguous queries) are minor but real.

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%, including explicit docs for trip_key, query, and the response_format enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the practical sequencing of concise vs detailed; it does not extend the meaning of 'query' (e.g., free-text matching rules) or clarify search radius relative to the trip destination beyond what trip_key's schema text already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for real-world places') and enumerates the entity types covered (restaurants, attractions, hotels, parks, landmarks), plus the geographic scoping to the trip destination. It is not explicitly differentiated from the sibling wanderlog_search_hotels, which overlaps with the 'hotels' category it claims to cover, so an agent could still hesitate between the two.

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?

Gives a concrete usage trigger ('resolve user requests like find a good coffee shop in Queenstown') and a sequencing rule when the goal is to add a place: concise first, then detailed to obtain place_ids. It does not name alternatives to use instead (e.g., wanderlog_search_hotels or wanderlog_search_guides) or state exclusions, so when-not guidance is missing.

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