lokal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results are 'ranked' and includes 'contact info and vCard links,' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic search functionality. However, it lacks critical information about permissions, rate limits, error conditions, pagination (beyond the limit parameter), or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, key parameters, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids any redundant or unnecessary information. Every part of the sentence earns its place by adding value.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, authentication) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. With no output schema, it doesn't fully explain the structure of returned data beyond mentioning 'ranked producers with contact info and vCard links.' This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with descriptions and constraints (e.g., categories and tags with example values, lat/lng for distance filtering, limit with min/max/default). The description adds marginal value by summarizing the filtering capabilities ('Filter by food categories, tags, and geographic distance') but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 performs 'structured search in the Lokal food producer registry' with specific filtering capabilities (categories, tags, geographic distance) and indicates what it returns (ranked producers with contact info and vCard links). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on structured search with specific filters, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'lokal_search' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 the sibling tools (lokal_info, lokal_search, lokal_stats). It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific use cases that would help an agent choose between these tools. The only implied usage is for searching with specific filters, but no comparative context is given.

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