Find outdoor table-tennis spots near a coordinate. Returns the nearest spots with their distance and a citable url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude of the search centre | |
| lng | Yes | Longitude of the search centre | |
| limit | No | Maximum spots to return (default 10, max 50) | |
| radiusKm | No | Search radius in kilometres (default 5, max 100) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only states it returns nearest spots with distance and a URL, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, error handling, or behavior when no spots are found.
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 short sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Very concise.
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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could mention ordering of results, how 'nearest' is determined, and provide more detail on the return structure (e.g., format of distance and URL).
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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'nearest spots' but not elaborating on parameter usage or format.
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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'outdoor table-tennis spots near a coordinate'. It distinguishes from siblings 'get-spot' (singular) and 'playing-conditions' (conditions only).
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 implies usage when you need to find spots near a coordinate, but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-spot' for a specific spot or 'playing-conditions' for condition data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: find spots, get spot details, and check playing conditions. No overlap in functionality.
All names use a verb-noun pattern with hyphens. Minor inconsistency: 'get-spot' uses singular while 'find-spots' uses plural, but pattern is consistent.
Three tools is appropriate for a focused domain like outdoor table-tennis spots. Could be expanded but not under-scoped.
Covers core use cases: finding, viewing, and checking conditions. Missing operations like adding or updating spots, or filtering by attributes.
