Recorridos cerca de un punto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the radius-scoping behavior ("dentro de un radio"), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or how coordinates are interpreted (which coordinate system), though the presence of an output schema mitigates some of this gap.

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 clear sentence that conveys the core behavior. It's appropriately concise with no filler. While it could add more detail, it's not bloated and communicates the essence 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 has an output schema, return-value documentation is covered. With readOnly annotations and 3 simple parameters, a minimal description might suffice. However, with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance against a large sibling set (14 tools), the description leaves the agent to guess about radius semantics and tool selection. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, meaning the schema itself provides no descriptions for latitude, longitude, or radius_km. The description mentions a coordinate and a radius conceptually, which maps roughly to latitude/longitude and radius_km, but it doesn't specify units for radius_km, coordinate format expectations, or the default 0.3 km behavior. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more but only partially does.

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 the tool returns routes passing near a coordinate within a radius ("Recorridos que pasan cerca de una coordenada, dentro de un radio."). This is a clear verb+resource action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like find_nearby_stops or find_closest_station, though the route-vs-stop distinction is somewhat implied by the context.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no hint that for stops one would use find_nearby_stops, or that get_routes is for listing all routes. Usage context is only implied by the tool's own phrasing and sibling names, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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