find_cheapest_gas_stations_nearby

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is its disclosure of behavior beyond that: results are hard-capped at the top 5, sorted by price, sourced from the Opinet API, and radius is bounded at 5000m. It stops short of describing error behavior or what happens when fewer than 5 stations exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into Args and Returns sections that are easy to scan. The only slight padding is the vendor name 'Fuel Station Compass(주유소 나침반)' and a redundant restatement of the sort order already implied by 'cheapest'.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by documenting the return shape (location plus an array of stations with name, brand, price, distance). Combined with the fully documented parameters and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 description must carry parameter meaning and it does: location is given with concrete example formats, fuel_type enumerates all four codes with the default (B027 Gasoline), and radius specifies units, maximum (5000m) and default (1000m). Nothing about the parameters is left ambiguous.

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 (finds) and resource (the 5 cheapest gas stations) with clear scope: near a specified location, within a radius. An agent can immediately tell what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling find_cheapest_gas_stations_on_route, relying on the name and the phrase 'near a specific location' to imply the distinction.

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 never states when to prefer this tool over find_cheapest_gas_stations_on_route or get_route, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the 'near a specific location' phrasing.

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