ChargeAlong public EV charging

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are distance-ordered, each item exposes power, plugs, price, network and its page number. It does not mention result caps or rate limits, but for a read-only ranked search this is solid.

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 ordering guarantee ('nearest first') plus result shape come before the optional-filter guidance. 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 a full schema, annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to frame purpose and filtering, which it does. It omits any note about the proximity requirement (lat/lng) being mandatory or the radius default, but the schema already states both.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the intent of min_kw, plugs and network with use-case language, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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+resource (find charging sites) with scope ('nearest a point, nearest first') and enumerates what each result carries. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_charger (the singular, presumably by-id lookup), so an agent must infer the split.

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 filter sentence tells the agent what each optional parameter is useful for ('min_kw for fast charging, plugs for what the car takes, network for one operator'), and it routes to list_networks for slugs. However, it never states when to use this tool versus get_charger, so the routing against the closest sibling is left implied.

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, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a sense of output completeness ('Everything about one site') and names returned fields, but since an output schema exists, this mostly repeats structured data and adds no auth, rate-limit, or error 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with a clean colon list. Every element serves the purpose of clarifying scope and returned detail, with no wasted words.

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-by-id tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states the retrieval scope, the source of the id, and what 'full' means, leaving nothing critical for an agent to infer.

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 the public_id parameter is fully documented with format and origin ('the last part of a site's URL'). The description echoes 'from an earlier answer' but adds no syntax or meaning 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 resource ('one site') and clearly scopes it to full detail retrieval from an earlier answer, distinguishing it from search/list siblings like find_chargers. An agent can tell this returns complete site data rather than a collection or summary.

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 phrase 'from an earlier answer' gives a clear usage context: this tool requires a public_id already obtained from another call. It does not explicitly name find_chargers as the alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are sorted biggest-first and each entry reports site count and region reach.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the resource and scope, that still carries the ordering and returned-metric details. 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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and the input schema fully covers the sole parameter. The only gap is the absence of any when-to-use routing against the three sibling tools.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the country slug with its allowed values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States the resource (charging networks), the scope (networks with sites in a given country), and even the ordering (biggest first) plus the returned metrics. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the aggregate-network framing is clearly distinct from charger-level tools like find_chargers and get_charger.

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 choose this over find_chargers, get_charger, or search_places. Usage is only inferable from the resource scope, with no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or 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=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that each result carries a coordinate and a charging-site count, which is useful context. It does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs prefix vs fuzzy) or result-set size, so it clears the annotation-lowered bar without going far beyond it.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the match criteria first, then the payload. No filler, though it is a fragment with no closing context on result limits.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers the essential purpose and return shape. Only the sibling routing and matching semantics are missing, which are minor for a tool this simple.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (including the 'at least two characters' constraint), the schema does the documentation work and the description correctly does not repeat it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Places matching a name') and the title clarifies the lookup key is a suburb, town or postcode. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_chargers, so an agent gets no explicit help separating the lookup step from the charger-search step.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but 'each with a coordinate to search around' implies this is the geocoding prerequisite step before a charger search. Usage is inferable rather than stated, and no alternative sibling is named.

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