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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the optional country parameter and the fallback to an aggregate report when omitted, plus the list of covered data types. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence, example queries in the second, and a compact Args section. Every sentence contributes meaning with no 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, including the parameter's effect and the returned data categories. The sibling context makes its role clear, so no additional detail is needed.

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 fully describes the country parameter (ISO code, optional, aggregate if omitted) with 100% coverage. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema, adding no new semantic information 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 clearly states the tool returns the types of live data EkoPump has for a country or all countries, with a specific list of data categories (fuel, transit, vehicles, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on specific data types like alerts or fuel prices.

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 cases are provided: answering whether EkoPump has data for a country or what coverage exists in a specific country. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to select this tool.

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