tool_find_nearby_hospitals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses data provenance (OpenStreetMap), which tells the agent the coverage and quality profile, and it bounds radius_km (1-30) and max_results (1-20). It says nothing about return format, ordering, empty-result behavior, or rate limits, leaving real gaps.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is terse and scannable, with no filler. Slightly redundant to restate parameter names already in the schema, but it is efficiently done.

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 5-parameter, mutation-free lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs well but omits what the caller gets back (fields, ordering, distance/address info) and any failure behavior when nothing is found in the radius. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description does the work: it names all five parameters, states units (km), gives valid ranges (1-30, 1-20), and marks city as an optional hint. It does not specify coordinate format or ordering (decimal degrees? lat/long order), which prevents a 5.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Find hospitals and clinics near a location') and names the data source (OpenStreetMap), which is meaningful for a POI lookup. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like tool_find_places or tool_search_restaurants_bars, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing coordinates or geocoding first), and no routing away from overlapping siblings such as tool_find_places. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'near a location' phrasing.

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