search_around

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core search behavior and examples, without mentioning any limitations, result format, pagination behavior, or special conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has more nuanced 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action (search around a point) and includes relevant scenario examples. There is no wasted information or redundancy.

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?

The description is minimal but sufficient for a simple search tool with fully documented parameters. It lacks explicit notes on return values (no output schema) and does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the basic purpose, but the schema covers parameter details. The absence of any edge-case or behavior notes makes it only slightly above minimum viability.

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 all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 function: searching for points of interest around a specified coordinate. It provides concrete scenario examples (nearby restaurants, gas stations) and distinguishes it from sibling search tools by emphasizing the coordinate-based 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?

The description gives explicit usage context with '适用于' (suitable for) and examples of when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario examples imply the appropriate use case.

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