amap_poi_ranking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the core behavior (search, sort, return top N) but doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or clarify limitations such as the need for location/city or the max 'top' value. This is sufficient but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the tool's identity and purpose, includes a helpful analogy, and gives concrete use cases. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main use case and expected result (top N sorted list). It does not explain edge cases like location+radius interplay or minimum rating, but these are well-captured in the schema, so the description is not critically incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, aside from reinforcing the sorting concept. It does not compensate further or introduce ambiguity.

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's function: searching POIs in a specified area/city and returning a sorted top-N list by rating/price. The analogy to '扫街榜' and the use cases ('找好餐厅、好酒吧') make it distinct from sibling tools like amap_poi_search or amap_poi_around.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('找好餐厅、好酒吧、热门打卡地就用这个'), implying a ranking/exploration use case. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it misses the 'explicit alternatives' bar for a 5.

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