get_grid_proximity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral facts: data source (OSM Overpass) and no API key required, plus hints at output fields (distance, voltage, operator). But it omits whether the result is a single nearest item or a list, and gives no information about rate limits 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then adds source and authentication context. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin on result shape and edge cases. It explains the source and key requirement but leaves 'nearest' ambiguous (singular vs. list) and does not describe the return format. However, parameter coverage is strong, so it is not severely incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; the mention of 'distance, voltage, operator' appears to describe output features rather than parameter usage. The schema already documents latitude, longitude, radius, and voltage minimum adequately.

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 ('get') and resource ('nearest grid infrastructure' including substations and HV lines within a radius). The 'nearest' and 'within a radius' qualifiers distinguish it from broader grid tools like get_transmission_lines, giving it a clear, scoped purpose.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need grid infrastructure near a point. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as get_grid_connection_queue or get_transmission_lines, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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