Find Espresso Near a Location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that results are sorted by espresso-quality score and include distance and reasoning, giving insight into output behavior. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only search tool, these are secondary.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver all key information: action, resource, filter criteria, ranking, and return details. No filler or redundant content.

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 explains the core return aspects (sorted results, distance, score reasoning) but lacks a detailed output schema. It doesn't specify sorting direction (ascending/descending) or the exact response shape, but given the schema's thorough parameter coverage, this is adequate for a simple search tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive comments, so the description does not need to re-explain them. The description adds a slight behavioral context by mentioning coordinates and radius, but it doesn't go beyond the schema in explaining parameter usage.

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: finding ranked specialty espresso cafes near given coordinates. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_cafes by specifying location-based search, sorting by espresso-quality score, and returning distance and score reasoning.

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 implies the primary use case: searching for cafes by proximity to specific coordinates. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over general search tools.

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