search_nearby_experiences

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that 'raw source payloads are never returned,' which is useful beyond annotations, but it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, sorting, or filtering semantics.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that state the core purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 11 parameters and a rich output schema, the description is far too sparse to guide an agent on how to set parameters like radius_km, free_only, or max_stale_hours effectively. It does not mention pagination, defaults, or any selection criteria, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 55%, and several parameters (free_only, include_closed, include_unknown_location) lack schema descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning coordinates, leaving gaps that the schema alone does not fill.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search'), resource ('local DB'), and method ('by coordinates'), making its purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_experience_sources (listing sources) and get_experience (fetching a specific experience) by emphasizing geospatial search.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as render_nearby_digest or get_radar_status. Usage context is only implied through the name and coordinate-based description, with no stated exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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