find_nearby_amenities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool uses the Overpass API and returns a dictionary of amenities, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential external API behavior, rate limits, or data freshness, though these are less critical given the read-only annotations.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list and a brief return note. Every line adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return fields. It covers all input parameters with meaningful semantics and the tool's underlying API. It is complete enough for invocation, though it lacks usage differentiation from siblings, which is more of a usage-guidance gap.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It provides meaningful explanations for all four parameters: lat/lon as coordinates, radius_meters in meters, and amenity_type with concrete examples. This is clear and goes beyond what the schema titles alone provide, though it could include bounds or accepted amenity values.

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 a specific verb ('find') and resource ('nearby amenities') around a location via Overpass API. This distinguishes it from generic OSM element retrieval tools like get_osm_node or search_osm_elements, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 sibling tools such as search_osm_elements, get_place_info, or get_osm_elements_in_area. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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