find_stations_near_coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'find', the behavior of skipping geocoding, and sorted-by-distance output. It does not mention error handling or output format, but for a straightforward lookup, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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 compact: two introductory sentences plus a clean parameter list. Every line earns its place, with purpose well front-loaded and no redundant fluff. The Args list is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool is simple, yet the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage guidance. It lacks explicit output structure or edge-case behavior (e.g., no results), but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of a find operation, it is sufficiently complete. The sibling context further clarifies its niche.

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 zero field descriptions (coverage 0%), so the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: lat/lng as WGS84, type with allowed values, radius_miles range 0.1–50 with default 10, and limit range 1–25 with default 5. This adds substantial meaning beyond raw types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the public safety facilities nearest to a latitude/longitude, sorted by distance.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling find_stations_near_address by noting it skips geocoding, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when you already have coordinates; it skips geocoding and is faster than find_stations_near_address.' This names the exact alternative and provides a clear condition, plus a performance rationale.

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