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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context (OSM amenities, 500m radius, Overpass), but it leaves critical behavior undisclosed, such as what happens with an empty 'q' value, how coordinates are specified, and whether results are sorted or limited. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but input behavior remains incomplete.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the core information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place. It is slightly too sparse to be perfect, but as a concise one-liner it is well structured.

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 no annotations, an ambiguous single parameter, and related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It states the domain and radius but omits the essential coordinate-input semantics and any usage boundaries, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema covers return values, so the main gap is input behavior.

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 0% and the only parameter 'q' is a default-empty string with no documentation. The description mentions 'coords', which suggests q likely carries the coordinates, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., 'lat,lon', a query string, or a place name). This is only a slight improvement over the bare schema.

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 tool as returning nearby points of interest (OSM amenities) within a 500m radius of coordinates, and it names the data source (Overpass). This distinguishes it from siblings like nearbywiki (Wikipedia articles) and flightsnear, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use case is implied by the phrase 'Nearby POIs' and the radius, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over related tools such as nearbywiki, geocode, or revgeocode. It also does not explain how coordinates should be supplied via the ambiguous 'q' parameter.

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