nearby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single word 'nearby' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what it returns, its side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is completely inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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?

While the description is extremely concise (one word), it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; this description fails to communicate essential information, making it ineffective despite its brevity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and many potential sibling alternatives.

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%, with both parameters ('max_cursor' and 'city') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as what 'city' represents (e.g., a city ID) or how 'max_cursor' affects results. However, with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might relate to location-based queries (e.g., 'city', 'poi', 'searchlist'), there is no context provided about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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