sota_summits_near

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool finds summits near a location but does not disclose if it is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or whether it includes all summits or only specific ones (e.g., only activated). This leaves ambiguity about safety and behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief and lacks additional context that would benefit usability (e.g., default behavior). Still, it is efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but is not referenced), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, any constraints on radius or coordinate system, or the type of summits returned. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates, but the description should at least hint at the response structure.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (latitude, longitude, radius_km, limit). The description does not add any semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, such as coordinate format or radius constraints. Baseline score of 3 applies since schema is comprehensive.

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 the verb 'Find' and the resource 'SOTA summits near a geographic location'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sota_summit_info' (single summit) and 'sota_spots' (recent spots) by specifying a location-based search. However, it could be more specific about the type of summits (e.g., all summits or only activated ones).

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'sota_summit_info' for a specific summit or 'sota_spots' for recent activity. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for use.

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