Find trails near a place

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the two-step operation (geocode via OpenStreetMap, then bbox search), the return type (summary entries), and suggests a follow-up tool. This is excellent transparency for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two efficient sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the geocoding step, bounding box approach, return type, and follow-up tool. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but the overall process explanation provides context that enriches understanding of how parameters like place and radius_km are used. It does not exceed the baseline.

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 finds recreational routes near a named place by geocoding and bounding box search. It positions itself as 'the primary way' to answer that question, distinguishing it from siblings like find_routes_in_bbox (raw bbox search) and geocode_place (separate geocoding step).

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 explicitly says 'This is the primary way to answer what trails are near <place>', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context implies that for coordinate-based searches, find_routes_in_bbox would be appropriate.

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