explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions filtering, sorting, and layer capabilities, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or output format. The behavioral summary is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, each providing distinct value: the first defines the tool's core functionality, the second clarifies when to use an alternative. No extraneous content.

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?

While the description covers purpose and alternatives, it lacks details on how to specify 'near a location' (e.g., coordinate input). The empty input schema and missing output schema leave significant gaps for an agent to correctly use 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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so baseline is 4. The description mentions filtering and sorting options but does not map them to parameters since none exist. The description does not add value beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given no parameters.

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 is for 'BROWSING / DISCOVERY search' of cities, neighbourhoods, or mixed venues near a location. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_places' by noting that tool is for specific POI categories.

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 explicitly tells agents when not to use this tool: 'For specific POI categories, use `search_places` instead.' However, it does not provide further guidance on prerequisites or conditions for use.

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