around_search

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the basic search operation. It does not mention important traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or result ordering. The example adds some context but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence and an example, no redundant words. It front-loades the core functionality efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about output format, error conditions, and behavioral limits. The absence of an output schema means the agent must assume the response structure. It is minimally complete for basic use.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces parameter usage through an example (keywords '餐厅', radius 1km) but does not add new semantic constraints beyond the schema. The integration of parameters into the action is slightly enhanced.

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 searches for nearby POIs (point of interest) given a coordinate and radius, with an illustrative example. This unambiguous action separates it from sibling tools like geocode and regeocode which handle coordinate conversions. The purpose is specific and easy to understand.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like text_search. The description only explains what the tool does without mentioning prerequisites, limitations, or use cases. An agent would need to infer from context when to choose this tool.

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