find-nearby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions finding features around a point but doesn't disclose what types of features, how results are returned (e.g., list, count, geometry), whether there are rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately concise without unnecessary words, though it could be more informative given the tool's complexity.

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 spatial query tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'features' are, how results are structured, or provide context about the spatial database environment. This leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a spatial search around coordinates. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with any extra context like valid table_name examples or distance unit clarifications.

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 'Belirli bir noktanın çevresindeki özellikleri bul' (Find features around a specific point) states a clear verb+resource action but is vague about what 'features' means. It doesn't specify whether these are geographic features, database records, or spatial objects, nor does it differentiate from siblings like 'spatial-join' or 'smart-query' which might perform similar spatial operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'spatial-join', 'calculate-distance', and 'smart-query' that might handle proximity or spatial queries, there's no indication of this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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