Find Nearby Cameras

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: results are limited to the radius and sorted by distance, and coordinates must be WGS84. It omits error behavior, empty-result handling, and response shape, so it is helpful but incomplete for a geo-query tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the coordinate-format constraint and example. The example earns its place by clarifying coordinate ordering, though 'latitude, longitude' is already stated in the same sentence.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time concerns: coordinate system, radius scoping, and result ordering. It does not describe what a returned camera object contains, but the schema fully documents inputs and the geo-query semantics are clear.

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 100%, so every parameter (latitude, longitude, radiusKm, limit, county) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the WGS84 coordinate format and repeats the Skellefteå example, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find traffic cameras') plus scope ('near a specific geographic location'), which implicitly separates it from the sibling get_cameras (all cameras) and get_camera_image. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the near-location framing and the radius parameter, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_cameras or get_weather_stations_near_location, nor any prerequisites beyond coordinate format. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent.

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