Find places nearby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only query with no side effects, which is appropriate for a simple listing tool. Still, it does not disclose result ordering, response shape, or any access/rate considerations, though these are less critical for a low-risk query.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first is action-oriented and front-loaded with the operation and scope, and the second adds a concrete use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple geospatial listing tool with a fully self-documenting schema, the description conveys the essential operation and intended use. The only notable gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not specify result fields or ordering, but this is a minor limitation for such a straightforward tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all five parameters documented including defaults and bounds. The description adds only the concepts of 'coordinate' and 'radius,' which map onto lat/lon and distance, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'List public-transport stops and POIs within a radius of a coordinate,' giving a specific verb, resource, and query geometry. This clearly distinguishes it from text-search siblings like search_places and search_pt_objects because the search is coordinate- and radius-based.

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 second sentence, 'Useful to find the nearest station to a location,' provides an implied use case and suggests when this tool fits. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as search_places or search_pt_objects, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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