nearby_das

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints (radius max 50, limit max 100, ISO date format, normalized status values) but does not mention authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clean labeled Args list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

The description covers all parameters but lacks usage guidance relative to siblings, details about category values, and behavioral traits like error handling or auth. Given an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the gaps in contextual guidance keep this from being fully complete.

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%, so the Args section compensates by explaining all eight parameters, including defaults, max values, and allowed status values. However, 'category' remains vague (no enumeration of trade categories), and required parameters are not highlighted.

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 tool finds development applications near a location, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_das and get_da, which likely operate on different query logic or scope.

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 implies usage for location-based queries but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_das. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and first sentence.

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