amap_poi_around

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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any pagination behavior, result formatting, or limitations beyond the basic search action. The description is purely functional and lacks important context about what the agent can expect.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the core action and includes practical examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values or behavioral details. The parameter names are documented in the schema, but the description is thin for a tool with 6 parameters, lacking any mention of pagination, sorting, or result structure. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by naming 'center point and radius' but does not explain parameters like types, offset, sortrule, or keywords 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 clearly states the tool performs a '周边搜索' (surrounding search) given a center point and radius, with concrete examples like restaurants, parking lots, and banks. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools such as amap_poi_search (keyword-based) and amap_poi_detail.

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 when needing POIs near a location via '给定中心点和半径', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like amap_poi_search or amap_poi_ranking. No direct comparisons or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage context is only implied.

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