Find place names 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. It discloses the output format (feature type and distance) and names the data source, but omits important behavioral caveats such as the Norway-only coordinate range (only present in schema), handling of no results, or any rate limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 states the core purpose and output. There is zero waste; every word contributes value, and the key information is presented at the beginning.

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 complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides essential output details (feature type, distance) and the data source (Kartverket). It lacks mention of edge cases like empty results or pagination, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and annotated schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptive details for all four parameters (latitude/longitude ranges, radius_m and max_results defaults and limits). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline without surpassing it.

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 states a specific verb ('find') and a clear resource ('nearest official named features to a coordinate') with a source (Kartverket) and output details (feature type and distance). This differentiates it from siblings like find_addresses_near and find_stops_near, despite not naming them.

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 a coordinate is known and official place names are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools such as search_place_names or find_addresses_near are not referenced, leaving routing to the agent implicit.

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