Find restaurants near a famous landmark (monument, museum, park). Returns landmark info from Wikidata + nearby restaurants sorted by walking distance. Examples: 'Sagrada Familia', 'Colosseum', 'Central Park', 'Tour Eiffel'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City hint for landmark disambiguation. | |
| limit | No | ||
| radius | No | Search radius in meters. | |
| landmark | Yes | Landmark name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns landmark info and nearby restaurants sorted by walking distance, but lacks details on behavior when landmark is not found, authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 sentences: first states purpose and output, second provides examples. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description mentions what is returned but does not specify format, pagination, or filtering. For a simple tool with 4 parameters, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
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 75%, and the description adds value by listing example landmarks and mentioning 'city hint' for disambiguation. However, it does not explain the semantics of limit, radius, or how the city parameter is used beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 with slight positive increment.
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?
Description clearly states it finds restaurants near a famous landmark, specifies return includes landmark info and restaurants sorted by walking distance, and provides examples. This distinguishes it from sibling 'search_restaurants' which is more general.
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 for landmark-relative searches via examples, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'search_restaurants' or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are provided.
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.
