Search places by category

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that it filters by category/subcategory and returns coordinates, names, and metadata, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations like bounding box size constraints, OSM data staleness, or behavior when no results are found.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by filtering and return details. No redundancy or 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?

The description covers the main use case, return contents, and filtering semantics. Given that it's a search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it is reasonably complete even without capturing edge cases like pagination or max area. The absence of alternative-tool guidance is a minor gap.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds context by explaining how the parameters relate (category + subcategories filtering within a rectangular area) but does not add significant detail beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything.

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 searches for specific types of places within a rectangular geographic area, using OSM category and optional subcategories. This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from siblings like find_nearby_places (likely radius-based) and explore_area (likely broader).

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 effectively implies when to use this tool: when you need places by OSM category within a bounding box. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the rectangular-area formulation and category-filtering provide clear contextual guidance relative to siblings.

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