find_nearby_hills

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 states that results are sorted by distance and optionally filtered by classification, which are key behaviors. It does not explicitly declare read-only status, but the nature of 'find' implies non-destructive behavior. It omits details like pagination or result formatting, but the schema covers limits and radius, so the description adds adequate transparency for a search tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. It efficiently covers what the tool does, the required input, and optional behavior without any redundant filler.

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 geospatial search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the core output (hills sorted by distance) and the optional classification filter. It does not describe edge cases like no results or the exact return structure, but the schema covers parameter constraints, and the sibling tools provide enough context for an agent to infer typical list behavior. Some gaps remain, but overall it is solidly 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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds a bit of context by highlighting latitude/longitude as the required inputs and mentioning the classification filter, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 without significant extra semantic value.

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 finds British and Irish hills near a given location, which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_hills by emphasizing geospatial proximity (latitude/longitude) and distance sorting, making its niche obvious.

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 specifies that latitude/longitude are required and that classification filtering is optional, giving clear context on how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over search_hills (e.g., when you have coordinates instead of a name), and no exclusions or alternatives are named. This is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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