places_near_location

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 only states the basic action ('Get places') without detailing aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 18 parameters and no output 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the essential function in a compact form, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (18 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and usage context, leaving the agent with inadequate information to invoke the tool effectively in varied scenarios.

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%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering capabilities ('optional criteria'), which does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Get places near the given location, filtering by optional criteria.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('places'), and scope ('near the given location'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'places_near_place' or 'cities_near_division', which limits it to a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional criteria' but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison, resulting in minimal usage direction.

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