maps_around_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds API-version context (POI 2.0, v5) and makes clear this is a read/search operation, but it does not mention result shape, pagination, or how optional parameters interact.

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 one front-loaded sentence that states the core operation first. The parenthetical API version is useful but slightly secondary; it is concise overall with no filler.

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?

It is minimally viable: core semantics and schema coverage enable a correct call, but with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description alone leaves gaps around return values and when to set region/city_limit/sortrule.

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 schema already documents each parameter and its defaults. The description adds no extra semantic value for the parameters, which warrants the baseline 3.

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 names a concrete operation: search POIs centered on a coordinate within a radius. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like maps_text_search or maps_geo by the geospatial scope.

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?

It supplies clear context: use when the user has a center coordinate and wants nearby POIs within a radius. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the coordinate-scoped framing makes the intended use obvious.

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