dv_nearby

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: coordinates/distances may be approximate, and unsupported providers fail explicitly rather than silently returning empty results.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core scope front-loaded and the caveats secondary. No filler, though the second sentence packs accuracy and error behavior together and could be slightly clearer.

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 not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What's missing is parameter-level meaning for a 5-param, 0%-coverage schema and any routing guidance among the many sibling listing tools.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It only hints at lat/lon ('near a point') and radius ('distances') and says nothing about 'category', 'query', or the coordinate bounds baked into 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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'Public map listings near a point,' which tells an agent this is a proximity/geospatial listing retrieval. However, it never differentiates itself from close siblings like dv_neighbours or dv_get_listings, so the agent must infer which proximity tool to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as dv_neighbours for an adjacent-listing use case. The agent is left to infer applicability purely from the name and one-sentence description.

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