get_parties_in_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets' parties, implying a read operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no parties are found. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all parties within a certain distance of a coordinate') and adds a brief use case ('useful for finding nearby groups'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected output format. For a spatial query tool in a gaming or simulation context, more context on how parties are defined, what data is returned, and any limitations would be necessary for effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'distance' and 'coordinate,' which loosely relate to parameters like 'radiusSquares', 'x', and 'y', but it does not explain the meaning of 'worldId', 'sessionId', or the units for 'radiusSquares'. With 5 parameters and low coverage, the description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 purpose: 'Get all parties within a certain distance of a coordinate' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parties'), and it distinguishes the spatial filtering aspect ('within a certain distance of a coordinate'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_parties' or 'get_party_context', which might list parties without spatial filtering, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 implies usage for 'finding nearby groups,' which suggests a context of spatial proximity searches. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_parties' or 'get_party', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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