find_schools_nearby

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses no limits: no auth/permission requirements, no maximum radius or result count, no pagination or sorting behavior, no note on whether results are cached or how distance is computed. The only behavioral detail (radius default of 2000m) is really parameter information.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is compact. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which costs a little conciseness but not much.

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 4-parameter geo-search with an output schema, the definition covers the required inputs, units, defaults and filter semantics, so an agent can call it correctly. The main gap is routing guidance versus the many nearby siblings and any result-limit expectations.

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 largely does: it explains latitude/longitude as the search center in decimal degrees, radius as meters with a 2000m default, and education_levels as an optional filter with concrete example values. It stops short of enumerating the valid education-level strings, which the schema does not constrain with an enum either.

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 gives a specific verb (locate/find) and resource (educational institutions: schools, colleges) and frames itself as a 'specialized search tool', which implies it is narrower than generic place search. It does not, however, explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like find_nearby_places or analyze_neighborhood, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It offers a motivating context ('essential for families evaluating neighborhoods or real estate') which implies when to reach for it, but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as find_nearby_places or search_category. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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