Where to touch grass

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

The description discloses a key limitation: 'IP detection only resolves to the city centre, so without it every suggestion lands downtown.' This is beyond what annotations provide (all false, indicating non-destructive and non-idempotent). It also implies that passing a place improves accuracy, which is a behavioral trait not in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds essential guidance (when to call, how to use the parameter, and parallel weather call). No redundant information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers usage context, parameter semantics, a known limitation, and a recommended parallel action. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter (place) with examples. The description adds value by explaining the consequence of omitting the parameter (IP detection goes to city centre) and instructing to pass it when the user has provided location. This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 opens with an explicit action: 'Suggest nearby places to touch grass.' This clearly states the tool's function using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like grass_conditions (which provides weather) and touched_grass (likely for recording a visit) by focusing on location suggestions.

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?

It provides explicit triggers: 'Call it when the user asks where to go, or after deciding they need to go outside.' It also gives guidance on the place parameter and suggests parallel invocation of grass_conditions for weather, which is an alternative complementary tool. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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