overture_nearest

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent safety): stable ordering by distance then ID, zero distance for a containing polygon, geodesic point distances vs azimuthal-equidistant projection for line/polygon edges, and the meaning of an empty result. It stops short of covering pagination/cursor behavior or the limit interplay.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then layers the behavioral notes; every sentence adds information and there is no filler. Minor deduction for the multi-line indented formatting, which is slightly awkward for a short description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, but for a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description is too thin: it never explains the required theme/feature_type selection or the cursor/filters/limit mechanics. An agent could call it, but not confidently or efficiently.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies radius_m ('distance in meters') and gestures at center. Theme, feature_type, limit, cursor, fields, filters, release and include_geometry get no explanation in either place, leaving most of the parameter surface undocumented.

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 ('Find the nearest intersecting features') plus the resource and the scoping constraint (within a maximum radius, distance in meters). The proximity/nearest framing clearly sets it apart from sibling lookup tools like overture_search or overture_get_feature without needing to name 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?

Usage is only implied: the radius-based nearest search makes the intended scenario inferable, and the note that an empty result means nothing was within the radius helps interpret outcomes. However, it never states when to prefer this over overture_search or overture_spatial_join, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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