query_near_point

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: results are 'sorted by nothing in particular' and distance should be computed client-side if needed. It also explains the radius-0 exact-intersect behavior. It could additionally mention auth requirements, pagination, or output geometry behavior, but the core query 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with a clear purpose and concrete use cases, and ending with a useful behavioral caveat about ordering. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It never explains which parameter identifies the target layer, which is essential since there are three possible layer-identifying parameters. It also omits any clarification of the where clause or geometry return behavior, leaving significant room for incorrect invocation.

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 low (30%), and the description does not compensate for the seven undocumented parameters. It fails to explain how to specify the layer (layer_id vs layer_key vs service_path), the meaning of 'where', 'out_fields', 'limit', or 'return_geometry'. The radius-0 explanation is already present in 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('features of a layer within a radius of a lon/lat point'), and makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable with concrete examples. It also clarifies the radius-0 point-in-polygon use case, distinguishing this from generic layer querying.

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 clear context for when to use it: nearest bus stops, air sensors, parcel/zoning lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools like find_nearby_amenities, lookup_parcel, or get_zoning_at_point, and does not state when NOT to use this tool in favor of an alternative.

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