find_nearby_boundaries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the tool is not yet implemented and names the missing backend endpoint, which is a critical behavioral trait: calling it now will fail. However, it doesn't describe what the tool will do when implemented, such as output format or error 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 two sentences with no fluff. The functional purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by a clear status warning. The second sentence adds the specific backend dependency without 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?

For a tool that is not yet implemented, the description adequately signals that it should not be invoked. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives from the sibling set, details about what postal boundaries means in this context, and any sense of what the tool will return once implemented. Given the absence of an output schema, these gaps are noticeable but not fatal.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the generic phrase 'within a specified radius,' which the radius_km parameter already conveys. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Find nearby postal boundaries within a specified radius.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like geocode or reverse_geocode, which target coordinates and addresses rather than boundary polygons. The 'NOT YET IMPLEMENTED' note does not obscure what the tool is designed to do.

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 no when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. The only usage-relevant signal is that the tool is not yet implemented, which implicitly tells the agent not to call it, but it never states what should be used instead or under what conditions this tool would be appropriate once implemented.

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