find_cooling_spots

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 does explain that the search is spatial ('spatial analytics') and requires coordinates and a radius, but it does not disclose any limitations, accuracy considerations, or what the output list might contain beyond the tool name. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then covering parameter requirements. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 simple spatial lookup with an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context: what it finds, the required inputs, and the optional parameter. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. It lacks alternative tool guidance, but that is covered under usage guidelines.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does by explicitly naming all three parameters: latitude, longitude, and optional radius in meters. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it does not specify coordinate format or radius bounds.

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's function (find nearby cooling shelters) with specific verb and resource, and lists examples (parks, pools, libraries, fountains). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_weather_and_heat_risk or get_heat_safety_advice, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you need nearby cooling shelters. It also states the required inputs (latitude, longitude) and optional radius. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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