cip_projects_near

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of projects (stormwater, active/completed) and the return structure ('resolved location, a list of CIP projects...and a summary'), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or confirm read-only behavior, 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 and appropriately concise: a clear opening sentence, a supportive scope sentence, a neatly formatted Args list, and a Returns section. No redundant text; every part contributes to understanding.

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 geospatial query tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary input and output essentials. It could elaborate on coordinate format or error handling, but it is largely complete for this simple tool.

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 explicitly defines all four parameters in the Args section, including the relationship between address, lat/lon, and the radius_m default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantic meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find Mecklenburg County Capital Improvement Projects (stormwater) near an address or coordinate.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('CIP projects') with geographic and thematic context, distinguishing it from siblings like crime_near or homicides_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 provides clear usage context by explaining the two input modes ('Provide this OR lat/lon') and the default radius. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the instructions for address vs. coordinate input are a practical usage guideline.

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