find_nearby_lodging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions it queries OpenStreetMap Overpass, which reveals a data source and implies network dependency. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, response format, or behavior when no lodging is found. The phrase 'verify availability and breakfast directly' hints at external verification but is vague about what that entails. For a network-backed tool with zero annotation coverage, more transparency is needed.

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?

A single sentence with an embedded semicolon that combines two distinct concerns (finding vs. verifying). It is brief but packs two actions awkwardly. The 'verify availability and breakfast directly' clause is cryptically vague and could confuse agents rather than clarify scope. Efficiency is decent, but the second clause undercuts clarity.

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?

There is no output schema, so description must explain what the tool returns. It does not describe the result structure, count, or what 'verify' returns. Four parameters are present but the description addresses none of them (radius, limit are unmentioned). The tool mentions verification of availability/breakfast but never explains when or how that happens, leaving a significant functional gap for a moderately complex tool with a data-source dependency.

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 compensate for the 4 parameters. It addresses none of them: latitude/longitude semantics are implied by the tool name, but limit, radiusKm, and their defaults are never mentioned. The agent gets no guidance on search scope, result cap, or how radius interacts with Overpass queries. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level value.

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 tool name 'find_nearby_lodging' combined with 'Find nearby mapped hotels/motels/hostels' gives a clear verb+resource pairing with enumerated types (hotels/motels/hostels) and a scoping attribute (nearby). It distinguishes itself from geographic siblings like get_weather and plan_route. However, the appended 'verify availability and breakfast directly' clause muddies the primary purpose by suggesting a second behavior in the same sentence.

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 given on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, despite a rich toolset including plan_route, resolve_location, and compare_viewpoints. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., resolving location first via resolve_location before passing coordinates), no exclusions, and no explanation of when to prefer this over a general search. The usage context is entirely absent.

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