Find addresses near a coordinate

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 mentions that each result includes a distance, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a typical address lookup this is likely a safe read, but that is not explicitly communicated.

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 extremely concise, two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a valuable detail about the output plus a use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward lookup tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the core query intent and gives a hint about the return value (distance). It lacks an explicit statement about output structure (e.g., address fields) or ordering, but given the simple nature and the absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. A small addition about response shape could bump it to 5.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (100% coverage), including latitude/longitude ranges and radius/max_results limits. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it only mentions the output includes distance, which is not parameter-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 verb 'find' plus the resource 'all official addresses' and the scope 'within a radius of a coordinate'. It also names the data source (Kartverket) and a typical use case ('what is at this location?'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_place_names_near or find_stops_near.

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 a use case ('Good for what is at this location?') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions for using other tools. The guidance is implied but not explicit enough to fully navigate the large sibling set.

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