reverse_places

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or how results are structured (e.g., if multiple types are returned together). This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or safety considerations.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; a sentence that is too short can leave critical gaps. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose but also not adequately detailed.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, default behavior (e.g., limit=3, radius=80m), or how the coordinate should be used. This likely leads to confusion or incorrect invocation.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no information about the four parameters (lat, lon, limit, radiusMeters). It fails to explain their roles, accepted formats, or how they affect results. The description must compensate in low-coverage scenarios but does not add any value beyond the raw 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 nearby stations, stops, places, or addresses given a map coordinate. It uses a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from text-based suggestion tools like suggest_places and suggest_stations. However, it does not differentiate from get_station, which might have overlapping functionality.

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. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or best-practice scenarios mentioned. The description assumes the agent will infer context from the name alone.

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