find_nearby

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions ordering by distance but omits key behaviors such as whether results are limited, what 'features' includes, or if the operation is read-only. The 'filters' parameter is not explained.

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 conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is concise, but lacks structure such as bullet points for parameters, which would improve scannability.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, pagination, or the role of 'filters'. A more complete description would include parameter details and result expectations.

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%, so the description should explain parameters. It implicitly covers lat, lon, and radius_m but does not describe 'limit', 'filters' (including its anyOf type), or provide value ranges or formatting. The default values are mentioned in schema but not in description.

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 returns features within a radius of a point, ordered by distance. It uses specific verbs ('find') and resource ('features'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'features_in_area' which may not order by distance.

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 implies usage for nearby spatial searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'features_in_area' or 'search_features'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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