Suggest a meeting point

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true indicates the tool is read-only, which the description does not contradict; the suggestion is an analytical result, not a modification. The description discloses the behavioral trait of selecting based on balanced travel times, adding value beyond the annotation by explaining the fairness criterion and the geographic midpoint approach.

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 a single, efficient sentence that precisely conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every part adds meaning. There is no wasted text; it perfectly balances detail and brevity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), full schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the algorithm (geographic midpoint, balanced travel times) and implies returned value (venue suggestions). The sibling tools and annotations provide additional context, making this description sufficient for effective use.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Since the baseline for high coverage is 3, this is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding but does not need to.

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: suggesting a fair meeting point for people starting from different locations. It specifies the verb "suggests", the resource "meeting point", and the unique approach of finding venues around the geographic midpoint with balanced travel times. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like route_matrix or straight_line_distance.

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 when to use the tool: when people start from different locations and need a fair meeting place. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. However, the sibling tools (e.g., route, optimize_route, find_nearby_pois) provide context, and the description effectively positions this tool for balanced midpoint selection.

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