find_places_nearby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses data source (OpenStreetMap), the absence of star ratings, returned fields, and the save_as storage side effect. It could mention rate limits or data availability, but it is reasonably transparent.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, examples, category syntax, data caveat, and save_as behavior. It is dense but not bloated, with no wasted 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?

For a 5-parameter list-style tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, output fields, and side effects. Minor gaps like limit semantics and explicit radius units are addressed by schema defaults and parameter naming.

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%, so the description compensates by explaining category (friendly names vs. OSM tags), near (place names), radius, and save_as. Limit is not addressed, but the description adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states it finds every business of a given category within a radius of a place, with concrete examples and expected return fields. The phrase 'This is the tool for local lead generation' helps distinguish it from the sibling find_places.

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?

Gives explicit use-case context ('dentists near Bath', 'cafes within 2km of Shoreditch', local lead generation). It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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