search_category

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Structured results including...') and that results contain complete location details and metadata. It does not mention edges like limits or sorting, but for a search tool this level of detail 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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a brief contextual paragraph, a clean Args list, and a clear Returns section. It avoids wordiness and each 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?

The description covers the purpose, all six parameters, and the return structure. However, it does not clarify how it differs from overlapping siblings like 'find_nearby_places' or 'explore_area', which would be useful context but is not essential for basic invocation.

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%, but the description provides a full Args section explaining each parameter with examples (e.g., 'category: Main OSM category…', 'min_latitude: Southern boundary…'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 opens with a clear verb+resource+scope: 'Search for specific types of places within a defined geographic area.' It then specifies a rectangular geographic region and OSM categories, which distinguishes it from point-based 'nearby' searches and other geospatial tools.

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 context on when this tool is useful ('within a neighborhood or city district') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use a different sibling tool. Since context is clear but exclusions are absent, a 4 is appropriate.

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