bike_lanes_near

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It discloses the default radius, the option to supply coordinates or an address, and the return structure including a resolved location and summary sentence. While it does not explicitly label the tool as read-only, the 'Find' wording makes that clear, and the detailed return description adds useful behavioral context.

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 separate Args and Returns sections, and the opening sentence immediately states the purpose. Every sentence adds value, explaining parameters or expected output without unnecessary fluff.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all four parameters, explains the input alternatives, and describes the return structure with specific segment fields. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result appropriately.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining each parameter: address, lat/lon, and radius_m with its default value. It also clarifies the OR relationship between address and lat/lon, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Find bike lanes near an address or coordinate.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from the many sibling 'near' tools by focusing on bike lanes as the subject. The location input options are also stated upfront.

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 context: it is for finding bike lanes near a user-specified location, and it explains how to provide that location (either address or lat/lon). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to select this tool for bike lane queries.

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