landis_nsi_nearest_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the WGS84 coordinate requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether results are sorted by distance, whether the limit applies before or after distance filtering, or what happens when no sites are found. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the available space to add parameter semantics without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is adequate for a simple nearest-point lookup, but given 0% schema description coverage and five parameters, it leaves the agent without guidance on limit/maxDistanceKm semantics and result ordering. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 five parameters. It only clarifies that lat/lon are a WGS84 point; it does not explain 'limit' or 'maxDistanceKm' semantics beyond their schema names. The description adds minimal value over the bare parameter names, leaving the agent to guess units and behavior for maxDistanceKm and the meaning of limit.

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 specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('LandIS NSI evidence sites'), and a spatial criterion ('nearest to a WGS84 point'). It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like landis_nsi_within_area or landis_nsi_profile_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 usage: provide a WGS84 point and get nearest sites. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over landis_nsi_within_area (area-based) or landis_nsi_profile_summary (profile lookup), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The spatial 'nearest' phrasing gives some context, but no explicit routing guidance.

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