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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the guarantee that places are real, Google-rated, and never invented, and that a specific ask overrides the default top-attraction behavior. This is useful and does not contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the core purpose, default behavior, optional query behavior, and the key authenticity guarantee into a compact space.

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 is present, return values need not be described. The required and optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds the crucial behavioral guarantee of real Google-rated places. The definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the optional 'query' param through concrete examples ('specialty coffee', 'rooftop bars') and by implying that 'destination' is the city or place to search within.

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 identifies the resource ('real places in a destination') and differentiates the tool from siblings by emphasizing real, Google-rated, never-invented spots and optional specific asks. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'finds', so the action is implied rather than directly stated.

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 gives clear usage context: use for top attractions by default or for targeted asks such as 'specialty coffee' or 'rooftop bars'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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