Local-Logic primary + high schools near a lat/lng

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds behavioral context: it discloses that the endpoint may return an error field if the session lacks access and mentions it is sometimes agent-only. This is useful for the agent to handle auth responses.

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 concise, covering key aspects in a few sentences without unnecessary detail. It front-loads the purpose and then adds behavioral notes. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (separate lists with name, attributes, proximity) and error handling. It covers the essential information an agent needs to invoke and interpret results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify each parameter. It mentions lat/lng source but does not explain the optional 'language' parameter or provide additional meaning beyond the schema for any parameter. The focus is more on output than inputs.

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 fetches Local-Logic school data for a coordinate, distinguishing it from siblings by specifying the data source and structure (separate primary and high-school lists with attributes and proximity).

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 provides clear usage context by noting that lat/lng usually come from `onehome_get_property`, guiding the agent on how to obtain the required parameters. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is adequate for selection.

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