Find nearby places

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that results are grouped by OSM category and subcategory, which is a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention defaults, boundary conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for a read 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second states the grouping and use cases.

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 no output schema, the description hints at return structure via grouping but doesn't fully cover behavior or distinction from many nearby sibling tools. It's adequate but lacks depth.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schemas already provided.

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 'Discover points of interest and amenities near a specific location' with a specific verb and scope, and mentions OSM category grouping. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'useful for location-based recommendations and proximity-based decision making' gives an implied usage context but no explicit when-to-use or comparison against sibling tools like explore_area or search_category.

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