arnfa_cooling_centers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the data source ('Real กทม. open data') and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not disclose return format, side effects, or external dependencies. This is moderate transparency for a simple geo-query tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the core function, use case, and data source without wasted words. Every clause adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description lacks an explanation of return values (no output schema) and does not mention the optional 'n' parameter, so it is not fully complete. However, for a simple tool with few parameters, it captures the primary purpose and context adequately, earning a mid-range score.

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 only 33% (only 'n' has a description). The description mentions 'to a point' implying lat/lng coordinates, but it does not elaborate on parameter meaning or format, and it never mentions the 'n' parameter. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 finds 'Nearest OFFICIAL Bangkok cooling centers' to a point, which is a specific verb+resource+scope combination. It also distinguishes from siblings like arnfa_where or arnfa_ask by focusing on cooling centers for heat/PM2.5.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'for dangerous heat or PM2.5.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5, but the context is specific and actionable.

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