ada_features_near

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output structure (resolved location, lists under 'ramps', 'parking', 'signals', and a 'summary' sentence) and the address/lat-lon exclusivity. Yet it omits behavioral edge cases such as no-results behavior, invalid address handling, or rate limits, leaving some 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: a one-sentence summary, a coverage note, a clearly labeled Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, and key details are front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameters, and return format. The return structure is explicitly described because no output schema exists. Minor omissions include error handling and geocoding caveats, but these do not significantly hinder usability.

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 0%, so the description's 'Args' section fully compensates. It explains each parameter's meaning and constraints: address is free-form and mutually exclusive with lat/lon, radius_m has a default of 400 meters, and feature_type enumerates its allowed values. This adds semantic depth beyond raw names and types.

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 specific action: 'Find ADA pedestrian infrastructure near an address or coordinate.' It names the exact resource (ADA infrastructure) and lists covering curb ramps, accessible parking, and accessible signals, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crime_near or bike_lanes_near.

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 communicates when to use the tool: when ADA pedestrian infrastructure near a location is needed. It provides clear usage context by explaining address vs. lat/lon ('Provide this OR lat/lon') and the feature_type option. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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