Search Accessible Locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that results are 'scored with accessibility features', hinting at a read-only operation, but does not disclose details like sorting or pagination. No contradiction with annotations exists (none provided).

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 concise with three short sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly more integrated, but it is efficient and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It mentions scored results and accessibility features but does not explain the score range, output structure, or how to use filters (e.g., features, lighting) that are present in the 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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the need for latitude/longitude, already clear from the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides for the 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('wheelchair-accessible restaurants, cafes, and bars') and the requirement for location input. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which are unrelated (check_health, get_location_details, etc.).

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 the tool is intended for finding accessible places near a given location, and it explicitly notes required parameters. However, it does not provide exclusion criteria or compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the distinct sibling tools.

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