find_nearest_clients

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 ranking basis and active-client filter, but it does not clarify the effect of the limit parameter (default 10) or max_distance_km, potentially misleading an agent into thinking all clients are returned. The phrase 'rank all active clients' overlooks the default limit, creating a transparency gap.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and a use case in the second. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

The description adequately covers the core functionality and context for a moderate-complexity tool. It lacks an explicit return format, but given the schema's clarity and the tool's straightforward purpose, the description is reasonably complete. A slight deduction is made for not addressing the limit behavior beyond the schema.

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 100%, with descriptions for employee_id, limit, and max_distance_km. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'Given a PSW,' which maps to employee_id. Since the schema already documents each parameter, the description provides no additional semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Given a PSW, rank all active clients by distance from the PSW's home address.' It specifies the verb (rank), resource (active clients), and input (PSW), and differentiates from the sibling tool find_nearest_psw_for_client by focusing on the PSW-to-clients direction.

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 provides clear context by stating it is 'useful for identifying which clients are geographically closest and reducing travel time.' It implicitly suggests when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use list_clients or find_nearest_psw_for_client instead.

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