spots

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

No annotations provided; the description only states it returns nearest spots with distance and a URL, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, error handling, or behavior when no spots are found.

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 short sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Very concise.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could mention ordering of results, how 'nearest' is determined, and provide more detail on the return structure (e.g., format of distance and URL).

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'nearest spots' but not elaborating on parameter usage or format.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'outdoor table-tennis spots near a coordinate'. It distinguishes from siblings 'get-spot' (singular) and 'playing-conditions' (conditions only).

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 usage when you need to find spots near a coordinate, but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-spot' for a specific spot or 'playing-conditions' for condition data.

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 states that the tool returns 'details and nearby spots', which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects (it's read-only), error handling, or response format. The behavioral info 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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks details about the return structure (e.g., format of 'details' and 'nearby spots'), error cases, or any prerequisites, which an agent might need for proper invocation.

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 schema already documents the 'slugOrId' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying that slug is preferred and explaining how to derive it from a URL, going beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves a single spot with details and nearby spots, using a slug or raw id. The verb 'get' and the distinction from sibling tools like 'find-spots' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions 'by slug (preferred) or raw id', giving a preference for identifier type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'find-spots' or 'playing-conditions', leaving the agent without clear guidance on tool selection beyond the implied single-spot vs search.

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 should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, but it only describes output contents without mentioning safety, authentication, or rate limits. However, it is a read-only operation, so no major red flags.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a specific use case. Every sentence adds value without 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?

While the description specifies what conditions are included, it lacks details such as units, update frequency, or response format. Given no output schema, more completeness would help the agent understand expected data.

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 lat and lng, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool provides current outdoor playing conditions including wind, temperature, and precipitation for a location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'find-spots' and 'get-spot' by focusing on conditions rather than spot information.

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 usage for assessing outdoor conditions, especially for table tennis given wind importance, but does not provide explicit instructions on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use.

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