search_category

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 response shape (query params, count, matching places with coordinates/metadata), which is useful, but says nothing about result caps, pagination, rate limits, or authentication for what is presumably a read-only search.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema already exists, which is the only minor padding.

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?

With 6 parameters, 5 required, and an existing output schema, the description covers required inputs, optional filtering, and the general result contract, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. It stops short of clarifying how it differs from sibling search tools, which is the remaining 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 largely does: it defines category with OSM examples ('amenity', 'shop', 'tourism'), maps each boundary to a cardinal edge (min_latitude = southern, min_longitude = western), and gives subcategory examples. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 'Max Latitude' style titles, though format specifics like decimal-degree ranges are only lightly touched.

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: targeted search for places of a given category inside a rectangular region. It is clear what the tool does and what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like find_nearby_places or explore_area, leaving the agent to infer which search tool applies.

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 gives implied usage context ('useful for filtering places by type within a neighborhood or city district'), which hints at when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no naming of alternatives, so the overlap with geocode_address, explore_area, and find_nearby_places is unresolved.

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