search_pins

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: default/max radius, distance-based result ordering, and the shape of each result. It omits paging/truncation behavior around limit, which is the main remaining transparency gap.

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 purpose followed by dense, useful guidance, with essentially no filler. The listing of returned fields is slightly redundant against the existing output schema and the line-broken formatting is a bit ragged, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 6-param read tool with an output schema, an agent has what it needs: both spatial query modes, radius bounds, category vocabulary, and ordering. The only minor gap is limit behavior, which is low-stakes and partially mitigated by the visible schema default.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for 5 of 6 params: lat/lng pairing, bbox coordinate order, radius_m default and 50000 max plus its effect on sorting, and the full category enum (which the schema does not enumerate). The limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving its meaning and default unexplained.

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 + resource ("Find live pins on the PinDropped map"), which is clearly distinguishable from get_pin (single pin by id) and create_pin (mutation). It never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so it falls short of a 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?

Gives clear operational context: use either lat+lng with radius_m or a bbox string, with defaults and a max stated. It does not say when to prefer search_pins over get_pin (e.g. when you already have an id), nor what happens if neither location form is supplied.

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