Find nearby NYC public restrooms

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral details: automatic location detection with fallback to IP, an error condition when location is outside NYC, radius clamping to 5000m, and the conservative handling of unparseable hours for open_now. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place, covering location, radius, and open_now behavior without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers parameter behavior, defaults, clamps, error handling, and edge cases for a search tool. It's sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, and the description largely reiterates the schema (radius default/clamp, coordinate omission). It adds minor context about IP-based location detection, but overall it doesn't significantly augment the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Finds operational NYC public restrooms near a given point, sorted by distance ascending' – a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates from sibling get_restroom_status, which targets status of a specific restroom rather than discovery/search.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, including optional coordinates for auto-location, radius clamping, and open_now filtering. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling or state when to prefer this over get_restroom_status, but the distinct purpose is implicit.

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