search_nearby_libraries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavior burden itself. It does disclose that this is a search operation sorted by distance, which implies read-only, but it doesn't mention coordinate validation, output shape, or error behavior.

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?

One compact Korean sentence conveys the resource, basis, and ordering with no filler. All information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple search tool the description is adequate, but there is no output schema and no description of what a returned library record contains or how count is applied beyond the schema. The absence of annotations and output details leaves minor but real 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the distance-ordering context and doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own 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 uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource ('nearby libraries') and defines the operation's basis (user's location) and ordering (distance). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_libraries, which don't mention location-based distance sorting.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when a user has latitude/longitude and needs nearby libraries sorted by distance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it loses one point, but the context is unambiguous.

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