negocios_cercanos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses ordering (closest to farthest) and the DENUE source, and notes radio_m caps at 5000, which implies a read/search operation. It does not address permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the limite cap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a compact Args block. The docstring style is slightly mechanical but every entry earns its place by adding param meaning.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and all five params are documented with constraints. Behavior and ordering are covered; only explicit read-only/permission context and sibling routing are missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents all five params with concrete examples (latitud 19.4785, longitud -99.2396), explains 'que' empty-returns-all behavior, and gives hard bounds (radio max 5000m, limite 1-50). This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns businesses around a geographic point, sorted nearest-to-farthest from the DENUE dataset. The spatial framing ('alrededor de un punto') implicitly distinguishes it from non-spatial siblings like contar_negocios and buscar_negocios, though it never names them.

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 spatial 'nearby a point' framing implies usage, but the description never states when to pick this over buscar_negocios or contar_negocios, nor any prerequisites. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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