Find nearby places (POIs)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so behavioral transparency needs are lower. The description adds the sorting behavior ('sorted by distance') and mentions the default radius (1000m) which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but the long list of category shortcuts makes it somewhat verbose. While the list is useful, it could be condensed or referenced as a separate resource. The sentence about OSM tags earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and decent annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the category parameter thoroughly, hints at output ordering, and points to poi_details for full records. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return values per rules.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by listing all category shortcuts and explaining how to use OSM tags (key or key=value format with an example), which the schema only describes as a generic string. This additional detail elevates the score.

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 finds points of interest near a location, sorted by distance. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning poi_details for full records, and the list of category shortcuts provides immediate clarity on what kinds of places can be searched.

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 explicitly tells when to use poi_details instead ('Use poi_details for the full record of one result'), providing good guidance on an alternative. However, it does not address when other sibling tools like reverse_geocode or geocode might be preferred, nor does it explain when not to use this tool.

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