find_nearby_experiences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive query operation. The description adds context about location-based searching but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or result format. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description provides some useful context without rich behavioral details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (location-based search), rich annotations (read-only, open-world), and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on output format (no output schema provided) and doesn't mention pagination or result limits, but the purpose and usage are well-covered, making it adequate for agent selection.

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%, with all parameters (latitude, longitude, radius_km, language) documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining coordinate systems or language code specifics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully describes parameters.

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's purpose: 'Find shows, events and experiences near a geographic location on tickadoo®.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('shows, events and experiences'), and context ('near a geographic location'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_experience_details (detail view) and list_cities (city listing).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when a user shares their location or asks for things to do near them.' This clearly indicates when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, helping the agent select it based on user context rather than other tools like search_experiences (which might not be location-based).

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