Search ANWB Locations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that results include coordinates and that they are meant for route planning, but it does not go deeper into result ordering, empty-result behavior, or how 'matching' is determined.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what is searched and where, and the second states the output value and downstream use. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the essential return value (coordinates) and the downstream purpose (calculate_route). Combined with the fully documented input schema and annotations, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results. Minor details like coordinate format or handling multiple matches would improve completeness but are not critical.

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 schema already documents query, area, limit, and indexSets thoroughly. The description only implicitly relates to the query parameter by mentioning searchable entity types; it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the exact resource types: locations, addresses, streets, cities, and points of interest. It also states the geographic scope and that the tool returns coordinates, which clearly differentiates it from the route-calculation and traffic sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: to find coordinates for the calculate_route tool. It does not spell out exclusions or when NOT to use it, but the intended context is clear and the sibling tools are distinct enough that an agent can correctly select this one.

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