Find saved locations near coordinates (within radius)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tripId | Yes | Trip ID | |
| latitude | Yes | Center latitude | |
| radiusKm | No | Radius in kilometers | |
| longitude | Yes | Center longitude |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add the 'within radius' scoping, which is also in the schema (radiusKm). No additional behavioral detail is provided (e.g., return format, ordering, or pagination). It meets the minimum given 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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 read-only query tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of saved locations). It leaves this to inference. While annotations cover safety, the return type is ambiguous, which is a gap given the absence of an output schema.
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 each parameter having a basic description (e.g., 'Trip ID', 'Center latitude'). The tool description reinforces the radius concept but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'saved locations', and specifies the proximity condition 'near coordinates (within radius)'. This distinguishes it from trip_location_list (which lists all locations) and trip_location_add/delete. However, it does not explicitly mention the trip context (tripId), which is inferred from the tool name and parameter.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trip_location_list. The description does not exclude other use cases or mention scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent must infer the usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type and action, making selection. The main ambiguity is between trip_item_add and trip_transport_add, since trip_item_add lists transport as a category but trip_transport_add explicitly says to always use it instead for transport.
The naming pattern is highly consistent: trip_<resource>_<action>. Minor deviations exist with bare verbs like search and fetch, and trip_review uses a verb-only style, but these are easy to understand within the larger pattern.
37 tools is a large surface that exceeds the typical coherence threshold. While the domain is broad, the count makes the server feel heavy and harder for an agent to navigate compared to a more focused toolset.
The toolset provides strong CRUD/lifecycle coverage across trips, items, notes, tasks, locations, collaborators, shares, and transport, plus review and search capabilities. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct collaborator add, no location update, and no item-level comment delete, but these are workable.