search_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without revealing any behavioral traits such as result format, pagination handling, coordinate system, or edge-case behavior (e.g., polygon validation). This leaves the agent with limited insight into how the tool behaves beyond the initial action.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and scope without any superfluous content. It is exemplary in its conciseness and clarity, achieving maximum information density with minimal words.

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 schema covers all parameters, but with no output schema, the description could have provided more context about the result format (e.g., a list of POIs) or pagination behavior. The description implicitly suggests an output (POIs) but does not confirm the structure, leaving room for ambiguity about what the agent can expect.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, such as emphasizing that polygon is required or explaining how page_size is constrained. It relies entirely on the schema's existing documentation.

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 specifies the action (search), the resource (points of interest), and the scope (within a specified polygon area), making it distinct from sibling tools like search_around (radius-based) and search_poi (general keyword search). The phrase '在指定多边形区域内搜索兴趣点' unambiguously defines the tool's 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 description provides clear usage context with '适用于特定区域范围的搜索' (suitable for search in a specific area range), indicating when this tool should be preferred. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria, so it lacks the full compare-and-contrast guidance of the highest tier.

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