place_search_nearby

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 reveals multiple non-obvious behaviors: empty 'included_types' returns prominent places of any type, 'rank_by_distance=True' changes ranking from prominence to nearest-first, and it specifies default/max values for radius_meters and max_results. This goes beyond parameter listing and gives meaningful operational insight.

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 front-loaded with a single-sentence purpose and sibling differentiation. The parameter list is compact, well-structured, and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, and it avoids 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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema. The description covers all parameter semantics, states defaults and edge cases, and provides a clear alternative to a sibling tool. Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description is complete for its complexity and available structured data.

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 compensate entirely. It explains every parameter: latitude/longitude as center, included_types with comma-separated syntax and examples, default and max for radius_meters, default and max for max_results, and the behavior of rank_by_distance. This is a textbook example of compensating for a schema with no descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find places around a point by TYPE') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling 'place_search' by calling itself 'the typed complement to place_search's free-text queries.' This fully satisfies the requirement of a specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool ('place_search') and states the when-to-use distinction: use this tool for typed 'what's near me' queries, and place_search for free-text queries. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool versus an alternative, exceeding the baseline.

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