Find schools nearby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that results are 'sorted by distance' and that filtering is optional, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination limits, any maximum radius, or other operational details. The description is honest but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, then additional qualifiers. It contains no redundant phrases or filler, delivering maximum information in a compact form.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key filtering/sorting behaviors. It does not explain what the returned data looks like, but for a straightforward geospatial search tool this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters clearly defined. The description adds minimal new meaning: it acknowledges the 'education_levels' parameter as an optional filter and introduces 'sorted by distance' as an output trait, but the schema already covers the purpose and constraints of each parameter. The description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 core action ('Locate') and the resource ('educational institutions') with a specific scope ('near a location') and additional options ('filtered by education level, sorted by distance'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like find_parking_facilities and find_public_transport by focusing on schools and educational institutions.

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 context (finding schools near a point with optional filtering), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of sibling tools or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, so the guidance is only implicit.

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