nearest_road_of_class

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 function and does not mention behavior such as what happens if no road is found, how max_radius_m affects results, whether multiple classes are accepted, or what the output structure looks like beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the expense of necessary usage and parameter details. It is structured effectively for quick reading but lacks the completeness expected in a high-quality tool description.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the complexity of 5 parameters and no annotations means the description should provide richer context. It fails to address parameter meanings, edge cases, or when to use this tool, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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. It only implicitly covers lat/lng and road_class, but completely omits explanations for max_radius_m and include_geometry. No parameter details, types, units, or example values are provided, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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' and clearly identifies the resource: 'single closest road segment of a given class to a point'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like road_count_by_class and road_surface_composition, which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as road_count_by_class or nearest_place_of_type. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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