apple_maps_guides_nearby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape (guide summaries plus city id), the edge case (empty list outside a guides city), and the relationship to the guides home endpoint. It doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or whether the call is read-only, but for a read-style lookup tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core action. The first sentence states what it does, the second explains the return value and its connection to the guides home endpoint, and the third covers the edge case. Slightly wordy but 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, the return value, and the empty-list edge case. It doesn't describe the structure of guide summaries, but that's likely acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 all five parameters. The description adds context for latitude/longitude (the area) and mentions the city id output, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for lang, span, or country. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool gets Apple Guides curated for an area around a coordinate, names the 'Guides We Love' concept, and specifies the return includes guide summaries plus the city id. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apple_maps_guides (which likely gets a specific guide) and apple_maps_guides_cities (which lists cities).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need guides for an area around a coordinate, and it mentions the city id is what the guides home endpoint takes, which hints at integration with apple_maps_guides. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over nearby siblings.

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