find_nearby_amenities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are sorted by distance and that the tool finds the nearest amenity of a chosen kind. It stops short of describing result fields, distance units, or empty-result behavior, but the core behavior is 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?

The description front-loads the main purpose, then provides the kind list and example queries. Each part earns its place, though the kind list duplicates the schema enum and could be shorter, so it is concise but not maximally tight.

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 five-param geospatial tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential intent, sort order, valid kinds, and example tripes. However, it does not state what fields each returned amenity contains, explicitly define the radius and limit semantics beyond schema defaults, or describe fallback behavior when nothing is found.

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 schema covers lat, lon, and the kind enum, but only 40% of parameters have descriptions. The description adds practical value by listing kinds and illustrating radius_m with 'within 1km', but it never explains the limit parameter or explicitly defines radius units. It only partially compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('amenities of a given kind'), and explicit behavior ('sorted by distance'). It also enumerates the supported kinds, making the tool's scope clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_near_point or search_street.

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 gives concrete intended-use examples: 'nearest bus stop', 'closest air sensor', 'kindergartens within 1km'. This clearly communicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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