pota_nearby_parks

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

No annotations are provided, and the description minimally discloses behavior beyond the schema (e.g., 'filters by distance'). It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, efficient, and free of fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 is adequate given the 100% schema coverage and existence of an output schema, but it could clarify the interplay between the 'location' code and the latitude/longitude parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a general purpose but does not enhance per-parameter meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 it finds POTA parks near a geographic point, specifying the action and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like pota_location_parks by mentioning distance filtering, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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?

It provides a use case ('finding 2-fer candidates near an activation site'), which implies when to use, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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