os_places_nearest

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

The annotations already cover the read-only and idempotent safety profile. The description adds only the word 'nearest'; it does not disclose expected result count, sort order, coordinate reference system, or other response-shaping behavior, so it provides little beyond the structured hints.

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 a single seven-word sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word carries meaning and it is immediately parseable.

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 is simple on the surface and an output schema plus read-only annotations reduce the burden. Still, the description omits coordinate-system details, result limits, and how this differs from radius/within siblings, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. It references 'a point' as the conceptual location but never explains the expected lat/lon format, unit, coordinate system, or accepted ranges, which are material for a correct call.

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 names a specific action and resource: finding nearest addresses to a point. This distinguishes it from nearby sibling tools like os_poi_nearest and os_names_nearest, though it does not explicitly disambiguate from overlapping os_places_radius or os_places_within.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need nearest addresses around a lat/lon point. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointers to spatial alternatives like os_places_radius or os_places_within.

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