get_coordinates_object

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 states what the tool returns (list of objects) and the parameters, but omits any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, rate limits, or whether the results are sorted or limited). The tool could be a safe lookup or a costly operation.

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 concise (4 lines) but could be better structured. It mixes the primary action with argument details and a vague return statement. The phrase 'next enclosing objects' and 'close to the given coordinates' may cause confusion (enclosing vs nearby). It is acceptable but not optimally front-loaded or clear.

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 (unknown details), the description does not explain the structure or content of the returned objects. 'List of objects results close to the given coordinates' is vague: does it return the enclosing objects or objects near the coordinate? The term 'address tag' is not explained. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the objects represent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning by labeling 'lon' as longitude and 'lat' as latitude, and states they define the location. However, it does not specify expected coordinate format (e.g., decimal degrees, WGS84), valid range, or that coordinates are required. This is sufficient but not excellent.

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 it returns enclosing objects with an address tag that surround the given coordinate. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_location_coordinates' which likely returns coordinates for a string input. However, the phrase 'next enclosing objects' could be more precise (e.g., 'the smallest enclosing object' or 'all objects that contain the point').

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_pois' or 'search_location_coordinates'. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenario best fits this tool. An agent would have no guidance on choosing between sibling tools.

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