building_count_in_radius

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 only states the basic counting operation and does not address edge cases (e.g., zero buildings), coordinate system, handling of radius boundaries, or the exact return format. The output schema is not shown in the description, so transparency is limited.

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 clear sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it both concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple spatial-count tool with three numeric parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys the essential operation, and the parameter names (_m suffix) hint at units. While it could mention coordinate systems or edge cases, the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema reduce the need for extensive documentation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that lat/lng define the point and radius_m defines the radius, which adds meaning beyond raw parameter names. However, it does not specify units (e.g., that radius_m is in meters) or valid ranges, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 ('Count') and resource ('total buildings') with a clear scope ('within a radius of a point'). It differentiates from sibling tools like places_in_radius (returns places) and count_places_by_type_in_radius (counts by type), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 alternatives. Sibling tools such as count_places_by_type_in_radius or building_class_composition offer related functionality, but the description does not mention them or any exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the name, not explicitly stated.

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