vendors_near

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses valuable behavioral traits: the property's geocoded center, vendor ZIP-centroid approximation, 'coarse filter' limitation, and distance sorting. Yet it does not state whether it is strictly read-only, any permissions needed, or what happens when a property lacks geocoding – a noticeable gap given zero annotations.

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 moderately lengthy but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, algorithm, output ordering, defaults, and caveat. It would be slightly better if defaults were not already in schema descriptions, but it's well-structured and 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics: geocoding source, approximation, distance annotation, randomness, defaults, and precision. It omits edge-case behavior (missing geocoding), pagination, and error responses, but given its relative simplicity, it's reasonably 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% and parameter descriptions already define radius_mi (default 25) and active_only (default true). The tool description repeats some defaults but adds no new parametric insight, so it does not go beyond the schema. The baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Find vendors within a radius of a property' and includes unique details like radius and distance sorting that distinguish it from siblings such as list_vendors/get_vendor. The tool's purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool – when you need vendors near a property – and even details the approximation method, implying it's a specialized alternative to general list_vendors. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to infer.

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