Neighborhood verdict

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by disclosing that it does not call external APIs, returns structured errors for multiple failure cases, and degrades gracefully to straight-line times when street graphs are missing. This gives the agent a clear picture of side-effect-free behavior and fallbacks without needing to probe the 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 longer than a typical one-liner, but every sentence adds meaningful detail about behavior, defaults, or failure modes. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then efficiently covers edge cases. The density is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers invocation parameters, defaults, error conditions, degradation behavior, and the nature of the returned verdict. An output schema is present, so the exact return shape does not need to be enumerated here. For a tool with this many optional behaviors, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 only 17%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explains the mode override mapping from context, default walk with 15 minutes, the meaning of radius_m/minutes as overrides, and how empty context behaves. The only remaining parameters are lat/lon, which are self-evident.

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's function: accepting a point plus life context and returning a ranked verdict with strengths, weak points, and a verification item. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it is 'not a data dump' and by focusing on life-decision output. The action and resource are specific enough for an agent to recognize its role.

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 when to use the tool through phrases like 'life-decision neighborhood verdict' and explains what happens with empty context, but it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use it. The guidance on mode and radius overrides is useful for invocation but does not fully replace explicit sibling routing.

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