maps_search_nearby

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description focuses on the key behavior that the radius is a hard restriction, not a suggestion. It also mentions optional type filtering, adding context beyond annotations, though it doesn't disclose response format or potential billing implications (the latter is covered in the schema).

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 two sentences: the first states function, the second gives a contrast and a concrete usage example. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 10 parameters and no output schema, the description communicates the essential function, the key behavioral constraint (hard radius), and the intended use case. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for all 10 parameters, including `included_types` and `radius_meters`. The description's mention of type filtering and circle radius maps to these but adds no new syntax or constraints, so the baseline of 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 opens with 'List places inside a circle around a coordinate,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool maps_search_places by noting the radius is a hard restriction, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (maps_search_places) and provides a concrete use-case scenario ('what is within 500 m of here'), making it clear when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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