Paraderos cercanos

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the ordering-by-distance behavior and spatial radius scoping. However, it doesn't disclose return format details, coordinate system expectations (e.g., WGS84), or whether the radius is strict or inclusive — though the presence of an output schema partially relieves this burden.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and ordering behavior with zero waste. Well front-loaded and appropriately terse given the moderate complexity of the tool.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required), an output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers the core spatial-retrieval purpose and ordering. Gaps remain: no guidance on choosing between this and find_closest_station / find_stops_in_bbox, no explanation of coordinate format, and no mention of result count behavior relative to limit vs radius. Adequate but not complete.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. The description covers the conceptual purpose of latitude/longitude (coordinate center) and radius_km (radius), and implies limit acts as a count cap. However, it doesn't explicitly enumerate each parameter or note defaults (0.5 km radius, limit 20), which are left to the schema.

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+resource+scoping: find stops within a radius of a coordinate, ordered by distance. It's clear and distinct from siblings like search_stops (text search) and find_stops_in_bbox (bounding box). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from find_closest_station or get_routes_near_point, which are also spatial lookups.

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 for spatial proximity queries ('within a radius of a coordinate, ordered by distance') but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the relationship to siblings like find_closest_station (single nearest vs list within radius). The ordering-by-distance detail helps infer utility but doesn't state alternatives.

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