Local-Logic location scores near a lat/lng

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about the error field (HTTP details when upstream rejects) and the score value/text structure, which goes beyond what annotations declare.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and return details following. Every sentence adds value and the structure is clean.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the score pair format and error field, which covers the main return expectations. It does not mention language defaults or the overall response envelope, but for a read-only getter with annotations, it is nearly 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, but it does not. It never explains what `lat`, `lng`, or `language` mean or how they affect the result. It only says 'for a coordinate,' which vaguely implies lat/lng but leaves language entirely undefined. For a tool with zero schema help, this is a critical gap.

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 resource ('Local-Logic location scores') and the exact kind of data returned (pedestrian/car/cycling/transit friendliness plus proximity summaries). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_property or get_schools, which focus on other data types.

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 makes it obvious this is for location scores near a coordinate, providing clear context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, so it lacks the exclusion guidance that would earn a 5.

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