Mappls Search Nearby

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

It discloses the core behavior: search for POIs around supplied coordinates. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, radius constraints, or any auth/rate-limit context beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

One sentence, tightly scoped, with action and object front-loaded. The category examples are useful and concise; there is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool title.

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 5-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description plus structured fields is enough for basic invocation. It lacks explicit sibling-routing guidance, but that is a usage-guidelines concern rather than a blocker to calling this tool correctly.

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 baseline applies. The description's keyword examples roughly mirror those already in the schema and add no new parameter constraints, formats, or relationships beyond what the input schema documents.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('points of interest'), and the scope ('near given coordinates'), with concrete category examples. This cleanly distinguishes coordinate-based nearby search from sibling tools like geocoding or place details.

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 coordinate phrase implies this tool is appropriate when the agent has a latitude/longitude and wants nearby POIs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as mappls_text_search for text-based queries without coordinates.

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