battery_recycling_sites_near

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behavioral traits: the data source is the county recycling drop-off layer, the results are not battery-specific kiosks but multi-material sites, and only five sites exist countywide, justifying the large default radius. This goes well beyond the schema's structured information.

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 and appropriately sized: a crisp one-line summary, a brief limitation note, then organized Args and Returns sections. Each sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool is complete in context: it explains the conditional input requirements, the data limitations, the default behavior, and what the return dictionary contains. Since an output schema exists, the explicit Returns summary is a helpful supplement, and the conditional logic is fully addressed.

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 compensates by explaining every parameter: address is free-form, lat/lon are used together when address is absent, and radius_m has a default with a reason. This adds meaning that the bare schema properties completely lack.

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 battery/household-hazardous-waste recycling drop-off sites near a location.' It also differentiates from sibling tools by clarifying this queries the Mecklenburg County recycling drop-off centers point layer and that there is no battery-specific kiosk layer, making the tool's exact scope clear.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: provide either an address or both lat/lon. It also gives practical context by explaining the default radius and the sparsity of sites. However, it does not explicitly mention a sibling alternative or when not to use this tool, though the caveat that batteries are only one of several accepted materials serves as a partial exclusion.

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