inara_search_nearest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the external Inara API dependency and required API key, but does not state that it is a read-only search, mention rate limits, or describe error/side effects. The auth note is useful, but the safety profile is left implicit.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and data source; the auth prerequisite is parenthetical and compact. No filler.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition omits parameter roles, search value semantics, and alternative selection. The output schema covers returns, but callers still lack guidance needed 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 0% for two parameters, so the description must explain them. It never mentions 'search' or 'system_name', and gives no format guidance or default behavior for 'search' (default 'station'). No parameter meaning is added beyond schema titles.

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 search action (nearest) and resource (stations/systems) and names the data source (Inara API). It is distinguishable from EDSM/Spansh siblings by the API, though it does not explicitly contrast when to prefer Inara over those 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?

Only the prerequisite 'needs INARA_API_KEY' is given; there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like spansh_find_nearby_stations or edsm_sphere_systems. The API requirement is helpful but does not select between competing tools.

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