Iota Nearby

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail by disclosing the algorithm — great-circle distance to each group's bounding-box center — which tells the agent results are approximations, not exact polygon distances. It stops short of stating result ordering, which matters for interpreting `limit`.

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?

Two short sentences: the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence exists solely to explain the distance computation, which directly affects how results should be read. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only material omission is whether results are sorted by distance and what happens when fewer than `limit` groups exist — useful for a proximity tool but not required to invoke it 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 100%, so latitude, longitude, and limit are already fully documented with units and an example. The description's "given coordinates" merely restates the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 and resource ("Find IOTA groups") plus a qualifying scope ("nearest to a location"), which clearly separates it from lookup/search/islands siblings that are name- or criteria-based. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has coordinates and wants proximity-ranked IOTA groups. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (iota_search, iota_lookup) as alternatives for non-geographic queries.

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