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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source (Kartverket), the output contents (feature type and distance), and the spatial nature of the search. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, licensing, whether results are sorted by distance, or potential quirks of named-feature searches (e.g., duplicate names, missing features in remote areas).

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, no fluff. The core purpose is stated first, with the result contents and data source packed efficiently. 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It doesn't mention output ordering (likely by distance), pagination, or error behavior (e.g., out-of-bounds coordinates), but these are minor given the simple output and descriptive 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions, defaults, and ranges. The description reinforces that results are distance-based, adding slight meaning beyond the schema by noting 'nearest' and 'distance from the point.' This exceeds the baseline 3 but doesn't add extensive semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('nearest official named features to a coordinate'), names the data source (Kartverket), and highlights what each result includes (feature type and distance). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like find_stops_near and find_addresses_near by focusing on official named features.

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 the tool is for finding named places/features near a coordinate, which gives clear context for when to use it versus alternatives like find_addresses_near or find_stops_near. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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