Sweep area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the tiling algorithm, deduplication behavior, per-tile result ceiling, approximate cost (1-3 API calls per tile), default max_tiles=25, and that every response reports the exact call count. This is far beyond typical descriptions and sets clear expectations.

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 extremely efficient: four sentences cover purpose, when to use, algorithmic behavior, cost, and defaults. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately contrasts with the sibling tool. No redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 (6 parameters, nested filters, an output schema, and sibling tools), the description provides everything an agent needs to decide when to use it, what it does, how it behaves cost-wise, and how to tune it. Since an output schema exists, omitting return value details is acceptable. This is a complete context for task selection and 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 coverage is around 50%, with descriptions for query, area, filters, and included_type but not for max_tiles or tile_radius_meters. The description adds useful semantics for max_tiles (higher value = better coverage but higher cost) but does not explain tile_radius_meters beyond its name. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description only partially compensates for the missing schema details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search an entire city or region by tiling it into overlapping circular searches, then deduplicating.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_businesses by explaining it provides representative coverage rather than top results, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool instead of search_businesses ('Use this instead of search_businesses when you need representative coverage rather than the top results') and explains the underlying difference in result ceilings. Additionally, it gives cost/coverage guidance for max_tiles, helping the agent make informed decisions.

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