高德地点搜索

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the important context that an AMAP API key is required, which is a behavioral constraint not covered by annotations. It does not detail pagination or rate limits, but the key requirement is a valuable addition.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly covers the two modes and the API key requirement. 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential missing pieces: dual search modes, parameter dependencies, and API key requirement. It does not explain the output format, but for a search tool the agent can infer a list of places. The annotations further reduce the need for behavioral detail.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dependency between radius and coordinates ('需配合经纬度'), and implicitly groups parameters into city-mode (keywords + city) and coordinate-mode (keywords + longitude/latitude + radius). This goes beyond the schema's standalone descriptions.

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 '搜索中国 POI/地点' (search Chinese POI/places) and specifies two search modes (by city or near coordinates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cn_amap_geocode and cn_amap_regeocode which handle geocoding and reverse geocoding, not POI 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 implicitly guides usage by stating the two search modes (city or coordinates). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names and context make it clear that this tool is for POI search, not geocoding or other functions. A more explicit when-not-to-use statement would improve this.

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