find_nearby_places

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It explains the search scope, result grouping, and return structure. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, how errors or empty results are handled, or any limitations, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a brief use-case statement, and detailed Args/Returns sections. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but the added defaults and examples justify the length.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description appropriately provides a detailed return structure and parameter semantics. It lacks details on sorting order and error handling, but overall it gives a complete picture for a search 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 has no parameter descriptions, but the Args section compensates fully. It explains latitude/longitude as center point, radius with default and unit, categories with examples and default behavior, and limit as maximum total results. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 function: discovering points of interest and amenities via a comprehensive search around a geographic point. It distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting category grouping and broad coverage, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for specific category searches.

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 provides clear use cases: location-based recommendations, neighborhood analysis, and proximity-based decision making. It implies this is the general-purpose search while siblings may be more specific, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives.

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