search_studios

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses combination logic (activities OR'd, services AND'd across groups), ranking (nearest first), defaults, and the return shape (resolved center, applied filters, ranked list). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and pagination behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a structured Args and Returns block where each entry earns its place. Slightly long, but the length is justified by 12 undocumented 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?

Given no output schema, the Returns section describes the resolved center, applied filters, and ranked list. Combined with per-parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: every parameter gets meaning, defaults, and accepted value forms (slug/bare name/type/label for activities, region catalog values, limit range 1-50). This is well beyond 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 verb (Search) and resource (EGYM Wellpass studios/gyms) plus the core scoping dimension (near a location, with filters). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings search_classes and search_classes_near, which operate on classes rather than studios.

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?

Provides clear usage context (location defaults to Munich, ignored when lat/long given) and routes the agent to list_studio_filters for valid filter values. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over search_classes_near or other studio-related siblings.

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