os_names_nearest

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention how coordinates are used, whether results are ranked by distance, or what kinds of named features are included. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. 'Nearest named features' contains no functional content and does not earn its place as an informative definition.

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 tool's geospatial complexity, the description is far too minimal. It omits any explanation of the query location, coordinate system handling, or scope of named features, leaving the agent to infer essential context from the schema and sibling names.

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, but it does not. It fails to explain that lat and lon define the query location, that coordSystem controls the coordinate reference system, or that the tool parameter is a fixed constant. All four parameters remain semantically unexplained.

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 'Nearest named features' is a noun phrase that nearly restates the tool name 'os_names_nearest' without a verb or action. It provides a vague sense of the resource but does not clearly state what the tool does, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like os_places_nearest or os_poi_nearest.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as os_names_find, os_places_nearest, or landis_nsi_nearest_sites. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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