Navigi: community services across Canada

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that every row carries the public page URL and the listing's last-checked date, plus the instruction to cite them, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how the 'limit' pagination behaves.

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 tight sentences: capability and coverage first, then the output/citation directive. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded, though the parenthetical need list is slightly dense.

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 6-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the resource, the geographic scope, the keyword vocabulary, and the return provenance. Remaining gaps (pagination semantics, the free/no-referral filters) are handled by the schema or are minor.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description's need examples ('food banks, shelters, counselling, legal aid, income help') loosely reinforce the 'need' parameter but add no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, fitting the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (community and social services) with concrete need examples and the domain (navigi.ca). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'services_near', which sounds like an overlapping lookup, so sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 never says when to use this tool versus 'services_near' or 'list_needs', nor any prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the need/place framing, leaving the agent to guess between lookalike siblings.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return content but omits whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, what happens for unknown communities, or any pagination/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single efficient sentence that fits the tool's simplicity. It is well-sized and front-loaded, though terse enough that it omits useful context rather than being wasteful.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the return structure, parameter expectations, or error conditions that an agent would need to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 50%. The schema defines 'province' and 'community' (with 'slug or name' noted only for community). The description does not explain the province parameter or add format details, so it neither fully compensates for the coverage gap nor adds meaning beyond what the schema 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 states a clear verb+resource: retrieval of one community's listing counts by category and its page URL. An agent understands it returns per-community data, but it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like find_services or list_needs beyond the resource name.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot infer when get_community is preferable to list_needs or services_near from the text alone.

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 burden, and it does disclose return content (categories plus their searcher terms). However, it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup, nor anything about caching or size, so the safety profile is left to inference from the zero-parameter 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded ahead of the usage cue. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return value, which it does (categories with matching searcher terms). It is complete enough to call correctly, though it gives no sense of result shape or cardinality.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot express argument semantics and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing further about parameters, but there is nothing to add.

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 names a specific resource — the service categories navigi.ca uses, paired with the searcher terms each answers — so an agent knows this returns a controlled vocabulary, not services. It stops short of an explicit verb and never contrasts itself with siblings like find_services or services_near, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Call this first when unsure which need word to use' gives a clear triggering condition and even an ordering hint (before searching). It does not name the alternative tools it should precede or say what to do once the term is known, so it is context without full routing.

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 burden. It discloses the geo-radius semantics and the optional single-need filter, but says nothing about result ordering, result volume, or that the radius and count are bounded (km default, limit max 100). For a low-risk read-only search these gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the scope comes first and the routing condition second, which is exactly the right ordering for a scanning agent.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across five parameters, the description does the minimum viable job: it explains the geo query but omits pagination/limit behavior and any sense of what is returned. Adequate for a simple read, but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the meaning of lat/lng ('a point'), km ('radius'), and need ('optionally for one need'), covering four of five parameters, but the limit parameter and its 1-100 range are never mentioned anywhere.

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?

States the resource precisely ('community and social services') and its scope ('within a radius of a point, optionally for one need'), so an agent knows this is a proximity-based service lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling find_services, which is the closest and most confusable name.

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?

'Use when the person gives a location rather than a community name' gives a concrete trigger condition that implicitly contrasts with a name-based sibling (find_services). It stops short of naming that alternative or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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