Environmental brief for one location: fans out to every public geo-aware API (weather, terrain, environment, …) and returns a merged JSON. Partial results come back with an errors[] list. Requires 'Authorization: Bearer ppn_live_*'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude | |
| place | No | Optional human-readable place label (echoed back) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description compensates by disclosing key behaviors: it fans out to multiple APIs, returns merged JSON, handles partial results with an errors[] list, and requires authorization. This is substantial transparency, though it omits details like rate limits or latency.
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 three sentences, each adding essential information: behavior, error handling, and authentication. No redundant or vague phrasing.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the main functionality and error reporting, but does not describe the structure of the merged JSON output or any constraints on usage, leaving some aspects incomplete 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% and descriptions in the schema already explain lat, lon, and place adequately. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the default score of 3 is appropriate.
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 provides an 'Environmental brief for one location' by aggregating multiple APIs, and the name 'environment_brief' reinforces this. It distinguishes from the broader sibling tools 'execute_api' and 'search_apis' by being specialized and self-contained.
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 it requires a specific authorization token, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides any exclusion criteria. Usage is implied for environmental data retrieval but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: search_apis for discovery, execute_api for direct execution, and environment_brief as a specialized aggregate. No overlap or ambiguity.
execute_api and search_apis follow a verb_noun pattern, while environment_brief is a noun phrase, which is a minor deviation. Still predictable and readable.
Only 3 tools, but they are perfectly scoped for a gateway to hundreds of endpoints: discover, execute, and a convenience wrapper. No bloat or redundancy.
The search and execute pair covers all 507 endpoints, and environment_brief adds unique value by fanning out to multiple APIs. No critical gaps in the tool surface.