周边搜索

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-network behavior are covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the results come back as a list ordered from nearest to farthest, and the tool depends on an API key being configured first.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then location formats, then keyword examples, then the key prerequisite. Every sentence is relevant and there is no filler, though the keyword enumeration is somewhat list-heavy.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the schema, the return ordering is described despite there being no output schema, and the key prerequisite is spelled out. An agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents city, limit, radius, keyword, and location with defaults and bounds. The description largely restates the location formats and keyword examples, adding only a concrete coordinate sample. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: query nearby POIs of a given type around an input location, returned sorted by distance. It is clear and concrete, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_along_route, leaving that differentiation to the name alone.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite and routing instruction: an Amap Key must be configured, and if not, call set_amap_key first. That is genuinely useful context. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over search_along_route.

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