search_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the bounding-box search behavior, category-based filtering, and the return structure (count and list of places with coordinates, names, metadata). It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'search' strongly implies no mutation, and no side effects are mentioned. It also doesn't discuss error cases, but for a read-only search this is adequate.

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 well-organized with a one-sentence summary, a brief explanatory paragraph, and structured Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant or filler text. Every sentence provides useful 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?

Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete for basic usage. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values (query parameters, count, list of places with details). It omits edge cases like result limits or error handling, but these are not essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: 'category' as main OSM category with examples, latitude/longitude as decimal degree boundaries, and 'subcategories' as an optional list with examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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: 'Search for specific types of places within a defined geographic area.' It further elaborates as 'targeted searches for places matching specific categories within a rectangular geographic region,' specifying the verb (search), resource (places), and scope (geographic area). This distinguishes it from siblings like reverse_geocode or find_nearby_places.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'particularly useful for filtering places by type within a neighborhood or city district.' However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusion criteria, though sibling tool names imply different use cases (e.g., find_nearby_places for proximity-based searches).

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