lyon_nearby_facilities

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The only hint is that it likely returns a list (based on context).

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 sentence, very concise. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly longer to add value without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain parameter semantics or output, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%, but the description only hints at one parameter (categories) by listing examples. It does not explain 'location,' 'radius_m,' 'open_at,' or 'limit_per_category,' nor their formats or defaults.

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 states it deals with nearby urban facilities and lists examples (toilets, fountains, etc.), which gives a general idea. However, it doesn't use an explicit action verb like 'find' or 'list,' and the French phrasing may be ambiguous. It partially distinguishes from siblings by topic but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyon_resolve_place or lyon_mobility_status. There are no explicit use cases or limitations mentioned.

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