find_nearest_toilets

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are limited to Australian public toilets, but says nothing about return format, result limits, default radius, or coverage gaps.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and readable, though its brevity contributes to gaps in parameter and behavioral detail elsewhere.

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 simple read-only search tool with rich annotations, the description supplies the key geographic scope and search intent. However, with 4 parameters at 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the missing detail on limit, radius defaults, and result shape leaves it only minimally complete.

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 only 25%, with radius documented as metres but latitude, longitude, and limit undocumented. The description's vague phrase "to a location" does not compensate by explaining coordinate format, limit behavior, or radius semantics, so it adds little beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("nearest public toilets") with a clear geographic scope ("Australia"). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_toilet_details, though "nearest" implicitly signals a proximity search rather than detail lookup.

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 intended use is implied: search for public toilets near a location in Australia. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention the complementary get_toilet_details sibling or when to prefer it.

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