nearby_places

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals behavior like using reverse geocoding at multiple zoom levels and returning sorted results. However, it lacks details on error handling (invalid coordinates), rate limits, or authentication needs. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 well-structured with a brief summary followed by parameter documentation in a clean format. It is concise yet informative, with no wasted words. The parameter doc is slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (list of places with distances sorted by proximity). It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and output. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits beyond 'limit' parameter, or edge cases like no results found.

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 0%, so the description compensates. Each parameter (lat, lon, limit, categories, output_mode) is explained with context (e.g., comma-separated OSM categories, default values). It adds meaning beyond the schema, though output_mode could benefit from listing allowed values.

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 'Find places near a coordinate' and explains the scaling concept (buildings, streets, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'geocode' (text to coordinates) and 'reverse_geocode' (coordinates to address). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 describes what the tool does and implies usage for discovering nearby places, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'reverse_geocode' versus this). No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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