nearby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: it is a read-only listing operation, title anchoring reuses the article's own coordinates (no geocoding service), and results include distances. It omits auth, pagination, and error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the two anchoring modes and the payoff. Most sentences earn their place, though 'Useful for travel research' is mild filler.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing glue: the anchoring modes and the return content. It never explicitly states that one of title or lat+lon is effectively required, which is the one remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the title-vs-lat/lon mutual exclusivity and the fact that title anchoring avoids geocoding. That is genuine added semantics rather than restatement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Wikipedia articles geographically near a location') and immediately scopes it as location-based discovery. This clearly separates it from siblings like search, random, or featured_article without needing to name them.

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?

Explains the two anchoring modes and when to prefer each (title 'Use instead of lat/lon'), plus a concrete use case ('what's notable around here' questions). It lacks any explicit exclusion or named alternative sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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