Identify a coordinate

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds result-ordering behavior ('closest first') and return content ('with the distance from the point'), which the annotations do not convey. It does not mention billing/quota behavior despite detail_level's cost implications, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the use case immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 an output schema present, full annotation coverage, and 100% schema description coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose, ordering, and routing context — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is 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% and includes rich per-parameter detail (detail_level billing tiers, radius_m guidance, limit bounds). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('identify') and the resource ('nearest places' at a latitude/longitude), including the useful detail that results come closest-first with distances. It contrasts implicitly with goplaces_search/goplaces_nearby by framing the task as labeling a point, but it never names or rules out a sibling 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?

Gives clear triggering contexts: 'what is at these coordinates' or labeling a GPS position. It provides no exclusions or explicit alternative (e.g., when to prefer goplaces_nearby or goplaces_details), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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