find_schools_near_address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it searches only public schools, within a radius in miles, with a maximum radius of 25.0, and requires a full US street address. These constraints go beyond what the schema provides. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence summary, followed by a clean Arg list. Every sentence/line earns its place by providing necessary information. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter semantics. It does not explain the shape of the response (e.g., a list of schools with details) or handle edge cases like invalid addresses or no results, but these are not critical for basic tool selection/invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to call the tool.

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 input schema provides almost no description coverage (0%), only type and default values. The description compensates by defining each parameter: 'address' is a 'Full US street address', and 'radius_miles' is 'Search radius in miles (default 5.0, max 25.0)'. This adds crucial semantics and constraints (e.g., max 25.0) that the schema does not convey.

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's purpose: 'Find public schools within a radius of a US street address.' This uses a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('public schools'), and a specific scope ('within a radius' and 'US street address'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on districts rather than address-based proximity 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a US street address and need to find nearby public schools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of providing full usage guidelines. The sibling tool names imply district-based alternatives, but no direct comparison is made.

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