find_cheapest_nearby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool ranks municipalities by tax burden and that the search is radius-based. However, it does not explain that the ranking depends on the supplied household profile (income, relationship, children, confession), which is material for correct use.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and adds only a helpful real-world framing in the second paragraph. No sentence is wasted.

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 17-parameter tool with no annotations and only 41% schema coverage, this description is too sparse. It does not mention the required income1 input or that tax burden is computed for a household profile, so an agent could invoke it with just coordinates and radius and get an incomplete or misleading result.

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 only 41%, so the description should compensate. It adds useful meaning to latitude/longitude/radius by framing them as the office/station and commuting distance. But it omits the required income1 parameter and gives no guidance on the many household-profile parameters that affect the ranking.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Rank municipalities within a radius of a point by tax burden.' This clearly sets it apart from the tax-calculation siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives a concrete use scenario: finding the cheapest place to live within commuting distance of a location. It instructs the agent to pass coordinates and a radius, but it does not state when not to use the tool or reference alternatives.

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