FuelAzores

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value: it discloses the return format ('complete Markdown') and a data-freshness caveat ('Dated examples are not live prices'), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the retrieval instruction. The topic list is long but each item earns its place by mapping to the id enum; no 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?

For a no-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return format and freshness well, but with 0% schema coverage it should explain q's role and whether q combines with id. That omission leaves the retrieval/search contract 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It maps meaningfully onto the id enum (listing the guide topics) and language ('Portuguese and English'), but the q search parameter is never mentioned and its relationship to id is left ambiguous, leaving a real gap.

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 (Portuguese/English guides to Azores and Madeira fuel prices) and enumerates the topic scope that maps to the id enum. It only softly differentiates from siblings via the 'not live prices' caveat rather than naming get_fuel_prices/get_price_history, so it falls short of a 5.

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 an article id and language to retrieve its complete Markdown' gives procedural guidance on the id/language path, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs the sibling price tools, and the q path is never addressed. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds data-quality context ('verified and confirmed upcoming' prices with explicit review/freshness status and sources), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing operational about update cadence, caching, or currency staleness.

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, with the core capability front-loaded and the optional filters trailing. The first sentence is fairly dense with a list of returned attributes, but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does list prices, effective dates, review/freshness status and sources. Combined with a fully documented two-parameter schema, this is close to complete; only the distinction from get_price_history is left implicit.

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% and both parameters carry enum values plus explanatory text ('Specialist fuels are not interchangeable with road diesel'). The description only says the two filters are optional, adding no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Read the latest ... official maximum fuel prices') and enumerates the returned attributes (effective dates, freshness, sources), so the agent knows exactly what the tool provides. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_price_history, which is the closest in purpose, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage signal is 'Optionally choose a region and fuel', which just restates optionality already visible in the schema (0 required parameters). There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_price_history (historical) or find_fuel_articles (news), and no exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: a pagination contract (nextCursor until isDone) and an important data-integrity caveat about gaps representing missing evidence. Return-record shape is still unspecified.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The scope statement is front-loaded and the operational caveat follows immediately, so 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming nextCursor and isDone and explaining how to interpret gaps. Given five parameters and low schema coverage, more detail on filtering (year, limit) would help, but the core read-and-page contract is fully specified.

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 only 40%, so the description carries some burden. It hints at the cursor mechanism (nextCursor) and the page boundary, but year, limit, and the relationship between cursor and the returned nextCursor are not clarified; fuel and region semantics are left to the schema's own enum 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read a bounded page of verified historical official fuel prices') with meaningful qualifiers (bounded, verified, historical, official). It clearly implies a paged history read distinct from a current-price sibling, but it never names get_fuel_prices or find_fuel_articles to make the routing explicit.

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?

'Follow nextCursor until isDone' gives concrete operational guidance for consuming the tool, and 'gaps mean missing evidence, not unchanged prices' tells the agent how to interpret results. It stops short of saying when to choose this over get_fuel_prices, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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