search_pois

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns 'Found POIs information' and mentions parameters. It does not discuss safety, destructive potential, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then lists parameters and return value in a clean args/returns format. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 has 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the core function and parameter formats adequately. However, it lacks context about maximum bounding box size, result limit, or what constitutes a POI. With output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return structure, but additional usage context would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful detail beyond the input schema by explaining the format of 'bounding_box_coordinates' as [[min_lon, min_lat], [max_lon, max_lat]] and clarifying that 'filters_name' is an optional list of names. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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 tool searches for points of interest in an area. It uses a specific verb and resource combination, distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_location_coordinates' and 'search_known_routes'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself, so it misses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings. The agent must infer usage context from the name and parameters alone.

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