Sota Summits Near

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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result ordering (nearest-first?), whether the radius is a hard cutoff, or what happens when the limit truncates a dense area.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient but so terse that there is nothing to trim and nothing extra to reward.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are fully documented. What is missing is any sense of result ordering, radius behavior, or how this relates to the other sota_* tools — enough gaps to keep it at minimum viable.

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%, with latitude, longitude, radius_km (default 50), and limit (default 20) all documented inline. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find') and resource ('SOTA summits') with a clear scoping qualifier ('near a geographic location'), which distinguishes it from sota_summit_info (detail lookup) and sota_alerts. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferred 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over sota_spots or sota_summit_info, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the proximity-search use case from the name alone.

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