Find points of interest near a latitude and longitude.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Center latitude. | |
| lon | Yes | Center longitude. | |
| type | No | Optional place category, for example restaurant or cafe. | |
| limit | No | ||
| radius | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Find points of interest' without mentioning what happens with missing results, any constraints on lat/lon values, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination).
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 clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention what the tool returns, any ordering or pagination behavior, or how to interpret the output. Sibling tools exist but are not contextualized.
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 60%, meaning three out of five parameters have basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional information about parameters—e.g., the meaning of 'type' values or the units for 'radius'. It does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions in the 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 states the tool finds points of interest near a lat/lon. It is specific enough to convey the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_places' or 'reverse_geocode'.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
