nearby_places

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the multi-scale reverse geocoding behavior, filtering by categories, and output modes. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, though these are minor for a read-only query tool.

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 with clear sections for Args and Returns, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence is informative with no waste.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (list with distances sorted by proximity). Complexity is well handled: 5 parameters, two required, all described. No gaps.

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%, but the docstring thoroughly explains each parameter, including ranges for lat/lon, default for limit, and examples for categories. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 finds places near a coordinate using reverse geocoding at multiple scales. It distinguishes from siblings like reverse_geocode by emphasizing discovery at different zoom levels and returning multiple results.

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 for finding nearby places but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like reverse_geocode. No when-not or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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