PostFinder post offices and parcel points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result ordering ("nearest first") and result contents, which is mild behavioral value, but since an output schema exists the return detail is largely redundant and no rate limits, pagination, or coverage limits are disclosed.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior (nearest-first results) and followed by the only conditional guidance. No filler.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description is nearly complete for calling the tool correctly. The only omission is any signal separating it from its two siblings.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the category values verbatim rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so baseline 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 states a specific verb (find) and resource (places near a point), and enumerates what comes back (distance, address, opening hours, page). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools get_place and search_places, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

"Ask for a category when the question names one" gives a usable cue for the category parameter, and "nearest a point" implies a proximity use case. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_place or search_places, and no stated preconditions beyond the required coordinate and country.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful content-level detail (address, opening hours, accepted payment methods, last-verified timestamp), but no behavioral traits such as error handling or staleness semantics beyond 'last checked'.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with 'Everything about one place', that wastes no words. Slightly list-like but efficient and well-sized for a one-parameter lookup.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotation set covers the operation's safety and idempotency. The main remaining gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance against the sibling search tools, but the core completeness is solid.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that it is the last part of the place URL. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline 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 makes clear this retrieves the full record for a single place identified by an id from an earlier answer, which contrasts implicitly with the search-oriented siblings find_places and search_places. It names the returned fields rather than the verb itself, but the scope (one place, full record) is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'from an earlier answer' implies the id must come from a prior search/find result, giving some usage context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus find_places or search_places, nor any prerequisite beyond having the id.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry a coordinate and a page, but an output schema exists, so this disclosure is marginal and no other behavioral traits (ranking, fuzzy vs exact matching, result limits) are mentioned.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core resource ('Suburbs and places matching a name') is front-loaded. The trailing 'for turning...' clause is slightly circuitous but earns its place by conveying the use case.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and roughly why it exists. The only gap is routing guidance relative to find_places and get_place.

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% and the schema already documents the 'q' parameter including the two-character minimum. The description's example values ('Coburg Post Office') hint that multi-word place names are accepted, adding slight value, but nothing beyond the schema's own examples.

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 resource (suburbs and places) and the matching behavior, with concrete example inputs ('Coburg', 'Coburg Post Office'). It does not distinguish this tool from its sibling find_places, so an agent can't tell them apart from the description alone.

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 'for turning X into somewhere with a coordinate and a page' clause implies the geocoding use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer find_places or get_place instead. Usage must be inferred.

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