find_nearest_bike

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral logic: requiring at least N available bikes, special handling for N=1 ('free bike locations'), and optional bike type filtering. It goes beyond a simple verb-noun description, though it does not mention potential failure modes, sorting details, or what 'free bike locations' exactly entails. Given the read-only nature implied by 'Find', this is reasonably transparent.

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 highly concise: a two-sentence summary followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded core behavior is immediately understandable. No unnecessary fluff.

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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It explains the main behavior and all parameters, though it does not address edge cases like no available docks. The sibling tool is not mentioned, which slightly reduces completeness, but the core context is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args block that explains every parameter: latitude, longitude, count (with default), and bike_type (listing acceptable values and meaning of None). This fully explains the parameters beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('nearest dock with at least N available bikes'), including a special case for N=1. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool find_nearest_dock_spaces by focusing on bike availability rather than dock spaces.

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 the tool is for finding bikes by location and count, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling find_nearest_dock_spaces, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage context is clear from the description but not explicitly contrasted.

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