get_highlights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the nature of the returned content but says nothing about result limits, pagination, auth requirements, or how many highlights come back. For a no-annotation tool this leaves meaningful 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?

Three well-formed sentences plus an Args block, front-loaded with the core purpose before the content explanation. Appropriately sized with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Parameters are documented and the purpose is clear for a read-style lookup tool. The main omission is the lack of differentiation from the saved-highlights sibling, which is a minor completeness gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines lat/lon as the center point and radius_m as the search radius in meters. This adds real meaning over the bare schema titles, though the 5000 default merely repeats 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get highlights and points of interest near a location') and further qualifies the content type (scenic viewpoints, interesting places, user-recommended spots). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_saved_highlights, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 implies usage by stating the highlights are 'useful for planning attractive gravel routes', which gives an agent a sense of when the tool fits. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the distinction from get_saved_highlights entirely to inference.

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