amap_poi_search

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 only mentions '支持城市范围过滤' (supports city range filtering), which largely repeats the citylimit parameter in the schema. It does not disclose what the response contains, pagination behavior, whether results are ordered, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with three clauses. It is front-loaded with 'POI（兴趣点）搜索' which immediately telegraphs the purpose. Every phrase earns its place: purpose, search modes, examples, and a filtering capability. No redundant 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 explain what the tool returns and how it behaves. It does not mention the return format (e.g., a list of POIs with names, addresses, coordinates), nor does it elaborate on pagination or the interplay between keywords and types. The tool has 6 parameters and moderate complexity, but the description stops at a high-level overview, leaving important operational details undocumented.

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 some context by clarifying that search can be done by keyword or type and by providing examples of place categories. However, these examples do not add significant meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions, which already include similar examples like '「050000」（餐饮）'. The description does not clarify optionality or combination semantics 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 begins with 'POI（兴趣点）搜索' which clearly states the tool is for searching points of interest. It specifies the modes: '按关键词或类型搜索' (search by keyword or type) and provides concrete examples like '餐厅、酒店、景点、加油站、停车场等' (restaurants, hotels, attractions, gas stations, parking lots). It also mentions the distinct capability of city range filtering, which differentiates it from sibling tools like amap_poi_around that are location-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 description implies the tool should be used when searching for POIs by keyword or type, and it mentions city filtering as a context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like amap_poi_around, nor does it state any exclusions. The usage context is clear but not fully delineated.

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