find_places_nearby

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 provides no details about whether ways/nodes/relations are included, whether results are sorted by distance, how the optional tag_value affects matching, or what happens when no matches are found. The schema describes parameters, not runtime behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It could include more context, but it is appropriately concise and not padded with 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?

Given the presence of a complete output schema and 100% schema description coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for a simple search tool. However, it lacks key contextual guidance such as the type of OSM elements searched, sorting behavior, and how the optional tag_value affects results, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the tag/radius concept and adds no new semantic detail about parameter formats, defaults, or edge cases beyond what is in 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('OSM elements') and an explicit spatial scope ('within a radius of a point'). It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tool find_places_in_area by specifying the point-radius search geometry.

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 implies the use case for radial proximity searches around a coordinate, making the core scenario evident. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer find_places_in_area or geocode_place, but the point-versus-area distinction is strongly implied.

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