geoagentic

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses that it returns live real-time schedules (no date parameter), handles time via a note, and lists specific failure modes. It also clarifies that it does not accept coordinates or retry on failures.

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?

Well-structured with sections, examples, and failure modes. Front-loaded with purpose. A bit lengthy but all content is useful and 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?

Complete coverage given no output schema or annotations: explains geocoding, temporal behavior, parameter details, and error handling. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds critical context: moding must include WALK with TRANSIT, requested_date is optional for notes only, and examples show typical usage. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 is an 'EU-wide public intercity transit router' that accepts place names and returns multi-leg itineraries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geo-geocode and geo-route by emphasizing internal geocoding and real-time schedules.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Do NOT pre-geocode', 'Call it ONCE', and 'present the error message and STOP' for failed locations. Also explains temporal handling and gives examples, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, what happens when a city is not found, or whether only upcoming events are returned. The description is minimal.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could include more detail without being verbose.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return format or pagination. It does not, leaving the agent to guess the response structure. This is insufficient for full contextual completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose. No parameter details are elaborated.

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 action ('Find'), the resource ('upcoming events'), and the platform ('Luma'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings, which are about transit, geocoding, etc.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor exclusions. Since siblings are unrelated, the context is clear, but the description lacks explicit usage direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions a timeout parameter but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or what happens on ambiguity. The example helps but leaves gaps 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 concise with clear sections (USE FOR, NOT FOR, EXAMPLE). Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter guidance adequately. It could mention the return format (lat/lon) explicitly, but the context is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond the schema: it advises to 'Be specific — include city/country when possible' for the query parameter and notes the timeout default and maximum. This enriches the parameter meaning.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Convert a place name or address into coordinates (lat/lon).' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool geo-reverse by specifying what it is not for, ensuring no confusion.

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 explicitly states 'USE FOR' with examples like 'Where is Izola bus station?' and 'NOT FOR: reverse lookup ... use geo-reverse instead.' It also advises using it before other geo tools, providing clear context for when to invoke this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes outputs (reachable node count, radius, bounding box) but does not explicitly state idempotency or lack of side effects. For a calculation tool, the description gives a reasonable overview but lacks details on repeatability or rate limits.

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 very concise with no wasted sentences. It is structured into clear sections (main action, USE FOR, NOT FOR, EXAMPLE) and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 no output schema, the description partially describes return values (node count, radius, bounding box). It covers the core functionality and usage context well, though a bit more detail on output format would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds an example mapping user query to parameter values and explains the 'dist' parameter's role in larger travel times, providing additional context 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 clearly states the tool calculates reachable area from a point within a time budget, using a specific verb ('Calculate'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tool geo-route by stating 'NOT FOR: directions between two specific points → use geo-route instead.'

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?

Provides explicit 'USE FOR' and 'NOT FOR' sections with example queries, and directs to an alternative tool (geo-route) when inappropriate. This gives clear guidance on when 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical requirement for stringified JSON in the 'tags' argument and provides common tags. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior with no results. Still, it is sufficiently transparent for a search tool.

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?

Highly structured with clear sections (purpose, critical note, use for, not for, example, common tags). Every sentence is informative, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 6 parameters (all desribed in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, usage, parameter details, and examples. It is complete without being verbose.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the critical tags format in detail, gives common tag examples, and provides a concrete usage example mapping user query to parameters. This goes well beyond baselines.

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 'Find nearby places on OpenStreetMap (cafes, ATMs, shops, parks, etc.)' with specific verb and resource. It lists use cases and explicitly states what it is NOT for, distinguishing it from sibling tools like geo-geocode and geo-isochrone.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE FOR' and 'NOT FOR' sections, plus a concrete example with arguments. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and hints at alternatives for excluded use cases.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Only states basic function without disclosing behavior like error handling, rate limits, or data source.

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?

Very concise with front-loaded main sentence, followed by useful bullet points and an example.

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?

Adequate for simple tool with example, but missing behavioral details and return format (no output schema).

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; timeout parameter is not mentioned in description.

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?

Clearly states converting coordinates to address, distinguishing from sibling geo-geocode which does the reverse.

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?

Explicitly provides USE FOR and NOT FOR sections with example, guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral burden. It mentions output (distance, time) and constraints (max 10 km, timeout 30s max 60s), but does not discuss failure modes, auth requirements, or side effects. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured with sections (USE FOR, NOT FOR, EXAMPLE). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys necessary information.

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 no output schema, description explains return values (distance, time). Covers usage scope, constraints, and coordination with sibling tools. Lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a simple routing tool with clear inputs/outputs.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described). Description adds usage hints beyond schema: e.g., 'Graph radius in metres — increase if origin/destination are far apart (max 10 000)' for dist, and travel mode options for profile. Adds value without redundancy.

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 computes shortest walking, biking, or driving route between two coordinates and returns distance and time. It distinguishes from sibling tools like eu-transit-router (for intercity transit) and geo-geocode (for place name resolution).

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?

Explicit USE FOR and NOT FOR sections with alternatives provided: 'NOT FOR: intercity trains/buses → use eu-transit-router instead.' Also includes example and suggestion to first call geo-geocode if only place names are available.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that one call is sufficient and results should be combined into a single comprehensive summary, and warns against iterating. No destructive behavior is implied.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, use cases, and exclusions. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear usage scenarios, the description provides sufficient context. It covers behavioral expectations (combine results, no iteration) and limitations, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the coordinate parameters implicitly in examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 finds info about notable/historic landmarks, towns, and remarkable sites near a coordinate. It uses specific verbs ('Find info') and resource ('landmarks, towns, sites'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like geo-geocode, geo-reverse, geo-route, etc.

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 provides explicit 'USE FOR' examples and a 'NOT FOR' section listing exclusions (directions, finding specific cafes/shops, raw geocoding). It also advises against iterating over results and instructs to combine into a single summary.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses real-time OSM querying, data payload warnings, and buffer constraints. Does not mention rate limits or authentication, but overall transparent.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (intro, USE FOR, CRITICAL INSTRUCTIONS, NOT FOR). Every sentence is purposeful, no redundancy. Front-loaded with key action items.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, description provides comprehensive context: usage scenarios, critical instructions, and exclusions. Could add a note on return format, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value on buffer usage ('avoid massive data payloads') and endpoint selection ('high-availability server mirror'), enhancing understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Global Waymarked Trail & Mountain Route Explorer' with specific examples like hiking, biking, and mountain trails. It distinguishes from siblings like geo-route by emphasizing it's for mountain peaks and trails, not street routing.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE FOR' examples, 'NOT FOR' exclusions, and critical instructions (e.g., set small buffer, accept results, avoid iterative queries). Clearly tells when to use this over geo-route.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully addresses behavior: it returns per-property prices, guest ratings, free cancellation flag, and summary stats. The critical instructions add transparency on formatting and best practices. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USE FOR, RETURNS, CRITICAL INSTRUCTIONS). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value. No redundant or missing information.

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 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the return structure (dorm/private prices, ratings, cancellation flag, stats) and parameter usage. An agent can confidently invoke the tool with this information.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining how to interpret derived fields (summary.floor for cheapest, summary.average for general context) and emphasizing date format and default currency. This directly helps an agent use parameters correctly.

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 purpose: 'Live hostel and budget accommodation prices from Hostelworld for any city worldwide.' It uses a specific verb (get/prices) and resource (hostel prices), and distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (geo, events, etc.). No ambiguity.

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 provides explicit USE FOR examples and critical instructions (date format, currency default, meaning of summary fields, free_cancellation preference). This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, with no missing exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool makes multiple WFS calls per result and can be slow (10-30s), advises using --limit for reasonable response times, and notes rate limit considerations via --workers. Does not mention authentication or fully describe all edge-case behaviors, but covers major performance traits.

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?

Description is well-organized: initial summary, bulleted use cases, exclusions, search mode breakdowns, common KO IDs, and a performance note. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficiently front-loads purpose and usage.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, multiple search modes, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers all usage scenarios, performance implications, parameter combinations, and provides lookup aids (common KO IDs). An agent can confidently use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has full description coverage (100%), but the description adds substantial value by grouping parameters into search modes, providing concrete examples (e.g., '--parcel 3086 --ko 1725'), and explaining contextual requirements. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it performs deep parcel/building analysis with GURS WFS data and lists specific insights (zoning, heritage, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what the tool is NOT for and naming alternative tools (slovenia-cadastre, slovenia-wfs-expert).

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?

Provides explicit USE FOR examples illustrating appropriate queries and NOT FOR sections that exclude uses better handled by sibling tools. Also outlines four distinct search modes with parameter requirements and examples, guiding the agent on when and how to use each mode.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes inputs and outputs but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The tool's query-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 well-structured with clear headings, bullet points, and examples. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently organizes information. Every element 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?

With no output schema and complex functionality, the description lacks details on return formats, error cases, and required parameters per command. It mentions 'Returns: ...' vaguely without specifying JSON structure. Also missing guidance on command-specific required fields.

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%, baseline is 3. The description adds example values and groups parameters by command, but does not provide additional constraints or behavioral context beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The added value is moderate.

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 queries Slovenian cadastral data with specific commands (parcel, address, building, near-coords, near-location). It provides examples for each command, making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating from sibling tools through simplicity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slovenia-cadastral-deep or slovenia-wfs-expert. The description only lists commands; it does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description includes critical behavioral info: times are in CET/CEST (local time) and instructs to always include phone numbers in output. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 somewhat lengthy due to multiple agentic examples and bullet points. While structured (with CRITICAL and examples), it could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema, but the description specifies output expectations (include phone numbers). For a search tool, it covers key behaviors: time zone, dry-run, and required fields. Adequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds agentic examples that show parameter usage patterns (e.g., combining from/to/when/limit), providing more context than the schema alone.

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 'Search for car rides on Prevoz.org in Slovenia' which is a specific verb+resource. Among sibling tools like geo-geocode and events-luma, none are about car rides, so this tool is distinctive.

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?

Agentic examples illustrate how to use the tool with different parameters (e.g., --from, --to, --when, --limit, --dry-run). While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the examples provide clear context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses 'historic transaction records only' and outputs a 'data_quality flag,' implying a safe read operation. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy (e.g., repeating KO definition) could be trimmed for maximum conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description explains the output structure (JSON with stats and quality flag) and lists limitations. It could mention error handling for invalid KO IDs, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'ko,' so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's info ('KO ID (cadastral municipality), e.g. 1723') without adding new semantic details like format constraints or permissible ranges.

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 provides 'Market price statistics for a Slovenian cadastral municipality (KO), using ETN transaction data,' includes example queries, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by listing what it is NOT for, such as parcel details or live listings.

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 includes explicit 'USE FOR' and 'NOT FOR' sections with concrete examples and names alternative tools (cadastral-explorer, slovenia-cadastre), providing clear guidance on when and 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (meteo.arso.gov.si), that data is live, and lists returned variables. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or what happens for coordinates outside Slovenia, which are minor gaps.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and key return fields. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by listing return variables. However, it omits details on units, response format for multiple stations (count>1), and error handling for out-of-range coordinates.

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 coverage is 100% with thorough parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; baselines at 3 for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it provides current weather observations from the nearest ARSO surface station given coordinates, listing specific return fields (temperature, humidity, wind, precipitation, snow depth). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are weather-related.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies geographic restriction to Slovenia through the tool name and 'ARSO' reference, but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses coordinate system handling (WGS84 vs EPSG:3794) and endpoint roles. It lacks info on error behavior, rate limits, or side effects, but overall transparency is good.

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 well-structured with bold headings, front-loaded purpose, and concise sections. At 85 words in the main body, it is reasonably terse but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains coordinate handling and endpoint mapping but omits return value details and how parameters interrelate (e.g., ko + parcel). This leaves gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining endpoint numbers (e.g., '1' = Cadastral Portal) beyond the schema's brief label. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 purpose: a multi-endpoint WFS explorer for Slovenian geographic data, dealing with cadastral and zoning queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings like slovenia-cadastre by emphasizing its WFS nature and multiple endpoints.

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?

Usage context is clear: spatial bounding box queries against Slovenian geographic catalogs. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like slovenia-cadastre or when not to use it.

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