map_search_around

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions coordinate format and radius but does not disclose behaviors such as authentication, rate limits, error handling, or pagination beyond the limit parameter. The read-only nature is inferred 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 covers the basic functionality but lacks details about return values (no output schema). For a search tool with 5 parameters, it is adequate but not comprehensive. Nothing explains what the returned POI objects look like.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall logic (search around a center) and providing examples (e.g., 'coffee') and coordinate format, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool searches for POI within a radius around a given coordinate, using a specific coordinate format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like map_search_poi (likely keyword-based) and map_geocode (address conversion).

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 implies usage when needing nearby POIs around a location but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like map_search_poi or map_direction. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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