places_in_radius

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, or how the radius is interpreted (e.g., meters). It also does not clarify whether the search is inclusive of boundary points or limited by default.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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 having an output schema, the description is insufficient for correct invocation with six parameters. It does not explain required parameter semantics (e.g., radius_m units, category vocabulary) nor optional parameters like limit and include_geometry. The agent must rely on external knowledge or defaults, making the description incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 mentions category and radius, adding some meaning to those parameters, but it does not explain the unit of radius_m, the allowed category values, or the optional limit and include_geometry parameters. The description provides minimal guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 action (find), the resource (places), and the criteria (matching a category within a radius of a point). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nearest_place_of_type and count_places_by_type_in_radius by indicating a list of all matches.

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 implies usage when you need all places in a radius, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nearest_place_of_type or building_count_in_radius. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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