search_nearby_markets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that markets are 'registered' and that walking time is 'estimated,' which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are sorted or limited, or whether there are any rate limits or data-source caveats.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and subject, and every word 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?

For a geospatial search tool with four parameters and zero parameter-level schema descriptions, this is too sparse. The output schema likely covers returns, but the description does not clarify region format, coordinate interpretation, or walk-time semantics. An agent would still have to guess at important invocation details.

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 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at max_walk_minutes through 'walking time,' and says nothing about what region should contain, how latitude/longitude define the search center, or how max_walk_minutes is applied. Required parameters and their semantics are left mostly unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Find registered traditional markets within an estimated walking time.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search_nearby_hospitals and search_nearby_bus_stops by naming the exact subject matter and the walking-time constraint.

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 when to use the tool: when the user wants nearby traditional markets reachable by walking. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling search_nearby_* tools. The usage context is clear from the wording, but exclusions and alternatives are left to inference.

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