geo.nearby

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it mentions each category has a 'found/error block' and limits per category. However, it does not cover rate limits, authentication, or what happens on partial failure.

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 pack all essential information without fluff. The main purpose is stated first, followed by defaults, limits, and use cases.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return format (distance and error blocks per category) but lacks full structure details. Parameter description is adequate, and usage contexts are provided.

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 0%, but the description adds value by explaining radiusKm default/max, limit per category, and the time range for earthquakes. It does not detail the lat/lon parameters beyond implication.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: returns nearby airports, schools, climate stations, and earthquakes around a coordinate. It distinguishes from siblings like 'airport.near' and 'quakes.recent' by offering a combined result with distances and error blocks.

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?

It provides use cases like site assessment and relocation research, but does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., using 'airport.near' if only airports are needed). The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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