neshan_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool uses a center point (lat, lng) or that optional bounding box parameters can be used to restrict the search area. There is no information about authentication, rate limits, or whether the search is limited to certain regions within Iran. The description is too vague.

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 gets straight to the point. It is not verbose, but could be slightly more structured by breaking into two sentences or adding a bullet for key parameters. Still, it earns a high conciseness score.

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 tool with 8 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the search center relates to the lat/lng parameters, nor does it mention the optional bounding box. The tool is part of a larger set of Neshan services, but the description provides no context for integration or typical use cases.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description should add meaning for the undocumented parameters (ne_lat, ne_lng, sw_lat, sw_lng). It does not clarify that these define a bounding box for filtering results. The description merely restates 'near a location,' which does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions. The required parameters (term, lat, lng) are covered in the schema, but the optional parameters need textual clarification.

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 searches for places, addresses, and POIs near a location in Iran. It specifies the verb (Search), the resource (places, addresses, POIs), and the geographic context (Iran), making the purpose unambiguous. Though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like geocode or reverse_geocode, the general search intent is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as neshan_geocode or neshan_reverse_geocode. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other tools, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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