find_gastronomy

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

With no annotations, the description discloses some behavioral traits: it returns a formatted narrative list and notes world-specific geocoding for near (earth-313 vs bral). However, it does not explicitly state safety, sorting, or error behavior, leaving room for more transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a bulleted parameter list, and a return statement. Every element serves a purpose, and it is concise despite covering seven parameters.

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?

All seven optional parameters are meaningfully described, return behavior is stated, and world-specific nuances are provided. Given the moderate complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, including examples for cuisine and features, defaults for radius_m and max_results, and the relationship between near and lat/lon.

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's purpose as finding restaurants, food stalls, and gastronomy places in the current world. This uses a specific verb (find) and resource (gastronomy places), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_accommodations and find_events.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_accommodations or find_events. The only usage-related note is that lat/lon is an alternative to near, which addresses parameter selection rather than tool selection.

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