Discover Overture place co-location candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It exposes the fixed 800m universe, the stratified split, the cosine and percentile thresholds, the top-32 cap, the hypergeometric validation, Holm adjustment, and the important caveat that percentile is relative semantic distance and not a publish decision.

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 dense and technical, but every sentence contributes specific thresholds, constraints, or caveats. It front-loads the core purpose and then builds into methodology and output, with minimal repetition. It could be slightly streamlined, but the length is justified by the 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: it explains the discovery logic, filtering criteria, validation, and the general shape of the response. It stops short of specifying the exact response structure, pagination, or error behavior, which would make it fully complete.

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 only parameter, county, has full schema description coverage with an example and format details. The description adds contextual references like 'county-wide' and 'county only response,' but it does not materially expand on what the county value should be beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Discover a bounded county-wide family of Overture taxonomy_primary co-location candidates.' It goes well beyond a tautology and includes algorithmically distinctive details, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling analyzePlaceColocation, so differentiation is more inferred than stated.

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 strongly implies the use case: discovering county-wide co-location candidates. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as analyzePlaceColocation or queryPlaces, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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