Suggest a meeting point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful algorithmic context: it finds venues around the midpoint and selects the one with most balanced travel times, which is beyond the annotations. This provides insight into how the tool behaves, though it doesn't mention potential limitations like routing dependency or failure modes. Still, the added algorithm detail is valuable.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the mechanism. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's essence without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and algorithm. It doesn't explain the return format, but that's covered by the output schema. It could be more explicit about the dependence on routing for travel time calculation, but this is implied by 'travel times'. The description is complete enough for correct invocation without major gaps.

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% with all five parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it gives contextual meaning to parameters like 'locations' and 'profile' through the concepts of geographic midpoint and balanced travel times. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not compensate with additional parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: suggests a fair meeting point for people starting from different locations. It also explains the mechanism (finds venues around the geographic midpoint, picks the one with most balanced travel times), which distinguishes it from siblings like find_nearby_pois and route_matrix. This is a specific verb+resource description that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when participants start from different locations and need a fair meeting point. It implicitly communicates the use case but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. While it's clear from the sibling list that this is the dedicated meeting-point tool, the absence of explicit routing to alternatives prevents a perfect score.

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