Markets Nearby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that distance is straight-line (not routing), that results are nearest-first, that no geocoder is used, and what happens when the place has no toom market (falls back to a nearby market's postal code or coordinates). Return format and pagination behavior are left to the output 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?

Compact and front-loaded: scope and ordering come first, then the `near` format contract, then the no-geocoder caveat. Only the missing opening verb slightly hurts readability; there is no filler.

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 read-only, location-based search whose output schema documents the return shape, the description covers scope, ordering rule, accepted input formats, and the fallback case well. The remaining gap is minimal guidance on how this differs from find_markets.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does a thorough job on `near` (accepts id, name, postal code prefix, name/city words, or "lat,lon" coordinates) and implies the radius semantics of `radius_km`. However, `limit` and the units/behavior of `radius_km` are never addressed, leaving one of three parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

Effectively states the resource and its scope: markets within a given radius, ordered nearest-first by straight-line distance. The opening fragment lacks a verb ("toom markets within a radius"), but the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like find_markets or compare_markets.

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 never says when to pick this over find_markets, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions. The closest thing to guidance is the explanation of accepted `near` formats, which is input semantics rather than usage routing.

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