pois

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful behavioral details: results are grouped by category, units are decimal degrees and metres, radius is capped at 5000, categories are enum-constrained, and schema documentation states that category values map to fixed OSM tags server-side rather than raw tag expressions. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or auth needs, but the query nature and constraint details cover the most important operational traits.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core function stated first, then units and constraints, then a concrete example. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no padding or repetition of schema details.

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 four-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers the coordinate inputs, radius limit, category constraint, units, and provides an example. There is no missing information required for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by defining the relationship between parameters: lat/lon define the center point, radius_m defines the search distance, and categories constrain what is returned. The concrete example (lat=3.15, lon=101.71, radius_m=500, categories=["cafe","transit"]) makes parameter usage unambiguous.

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 function: returning points of interest within a radius of a coordinate, grouped by category. It is specific about the resource (POIs near a point) and includes an example call that removes any ambiguity. The resource and behavior distinguish it from sibling tools like geocode, reverse_geocode, isochrone, and bbox_summary.

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 when to use the tool: when you need POIs near a lat/lon point within a limited radius, with category filtering. It also states constraints (radius max 5000, categories are enum-constrained, no free-text queries). However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the alternatives from the sibling list.

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