Find places near a location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description goes beyond annotations by warning that many coordinates are tentatively identified and advising users to check contested and identifications fields, which is valuable behavior context. It does not cover pagination or full view of return shape, but output schema exists.

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 succinct: behavior, ordering, distance unit, anchor approach, and a concrete caution are each packed into three tight sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary output and utility, and every clause 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 output schema, 100% parameter descriptions, and clear read-only annotations, the description needs only to add usage nuance and caveats. It does exactly that, including the tentative identification warning that materially affects interpretation of results. An agent has sufficient information to select and invoke the 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has meaningful descriptions. The tool description clarifies the general anchor modes (place vs latitude/longitude) but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. This is the correct baseline for fully-documented parameters.

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 identifies the specific operation: finding biblical places within a radius, ordered nearest first, with distance in kilometers. It clearly distinguishes this from generic search tools by emphasizing spatial proximity and coordinate/place anchoring. The intent is unambiguous and not a restatement of the name.

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 explicit guidance on when to anchor by a known place versus using raw coordinates, including the specific use case for modern locations not in the knowledge base. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' so it does not fully satisfy the alternative-routing criterion.

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