Search Nearby Stations

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds essentially no behavioral context of its own: nothing about ordering by distance, maximum radius, behavior when no stations fall inside the radius, or result limits. The mention of AMeDAS as the dataset is the only added signal.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the resource and scoping stated immediately. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity edges into under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

Rich annotations, an output schema, and full schema description coverage mean the agent has what it needs to invoke the tool. Still, nothing tells the agent how proximity search relates to the station-search siblings, which is the main gap for a simple three-parameter tool.

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 lat, lon and radius_km (with its default) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates coordinate-plus-radius semantics without adding format, range, or unit nuance beyond that baseline.

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 (Search) and resource (AMeDAS stations) with the geographic scoping ('within a radius from given coordinates'). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as search_stations or list_stations, so an agent must infer that this is the proximity-based variant.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_stations, get_stations_of_type, or list_stations, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage comes from the word 'nearby' and the radius parameter.

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