search_nearby

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals key behaviors: distance-sorted results and exclusion of off-world records. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with key info. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters) but no wasted words.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and key behaviors but lacks details on pagination, return format, or how results are presented. Adequate but could do more.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds context for latitude, longitude, and radius_km (radius in km) but does not explain limit or the meaning of radius_km's constraints (default, min, max). No details on required vs optional.

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 declassified UAP incidents near a lat/lon, sorted by distance, and excludes off-world records. This distinguishes it from siblings like hotspots or notable_cases.

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 indicates when to use (spatial search for incidents) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like search_sightings or full_text_search.

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