brownfields_near

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool queries a recorded points layer, the input modes, and the return structure including resolved_address and summary. It does not cover potential error cases or rate limits, but for a straightforward read-only query this is adequate.

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 summary sentence, a context sentence, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. The docstring format makes it easy to parse quickly, and the most important information (purpose) is 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?

Although the output schema is marked as present, the description's Returns section fully enumerates the response fields, making the tool self-contained. It covers geocoding implications via resolved_address, radius default, and the county scope. For a tool with 4 parameters and a clear purpose, this description is complete.

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: each parameter (address, lat, lon, radius_m) is explained with examples and defaults. The crucial constraint that address is mutually exclusive with lat/lon is clearly stated, adding substantial meaning beyond the flat 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 opening sentence 'Find recorded brownfield sites within a radius of a location' uses a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('recorded brownfield sites'), and a scope ('within a radius'), which fully distinguishes it from the many other 'near' sibling tools. It also specifies the geographic context (Mecklenburg County), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'Provide either ``address`` or both ``lat``/``lon``.' This clearly explains how to invoke the tool, but does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like crime_near or homicides_near. Since the resource type is obvious from the name and purpose, this is a minor gap.

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