get_nearby_observations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'recent' observations but doesn't clarify what 'recent' means (the 'back' parameter handles this), nor does it describe return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 24 sibling tools), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format, differentiate from siblings, or provide behavioral context beyond the basic purpose. For a data retrieval tool with many parameters and alternatives, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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 description mentions 'recent' and 'near a geographic location,' which loosely maps to the 'back,' 'lat,' 'lng,' and 'dist' parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description adds minimal value beyond what's already structured. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent observations near a geographic location'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'get_nearby_notable_observations' or 'get_recent_observations'), which would require additional specificity about what makes 'nearby observations' distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 24 sibling tools available (including several with 'nearby' or 'observations' in their names), there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool from others like 'get_nearby_notable_observations' or 'get_recent_observations'—leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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