find_nearby_pharmacies

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

Annotations already cover the behavioral safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the OpenStreetMap/ODbL data source, which is a useful data provenance note, but does not disclose edge-case behaviors such as data freshness or response limitations. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not particularly rich.

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 effective: one high-level sentence, then a short parameter guide, and a brief data-source note. It avoids excess phrasing and is front-loaded with the action. Divergence from schema or annotation is minimal, keeping the overall text easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety/spatial openness, the description covers the main calling context: what the tool does, required parameters, and defaults. Missing details are minor like accepted chain values or error handling for invalid ZIP codes, but not essential for an agent to make a correct call in typical cases.

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 must carry the meaning for all three parameters. It does this thoroughly: zip is defined as a 5-digit US ZIP, chains is explained as a comma-separated list (with the example 'walgreens,publix') and that 'null' defaults to all chains, and limit is said to cap locations per chain. This far exceeds the schema's basic titles and types.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Find the nearest pharmacy locations to a US ZIP code, per chain.' It is specific about scope (US ZIP, per chain) and easily distinguished from sibling tools like search_drugs or compare_prices, which are about drugs/pricing rather than location lookup.

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 its use case by describing the action, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or list exclusions. No siblings are referenced, and no 'use this when...' guidance is provided. The intended context is inferred from the purpose, not stated.

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