RoamDial — World Radio Map

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by noting the data is real-time, that a sampling timestamp (observedAt) is returned, and that an availability reason is provided, which signals possible unavailability.

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 action and followed by the key return fields. It contains no filler and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the data source, the live nature of the result, and the key returned pieces. It could be stronger by clarifying when to use this instead of get_station or search_stations, but that gap is more about usage guidance than core completeness.

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 the schema already explains that stationId is a 12-character hex station ID or slug-id from the RoamDial directory. The description adds the notion of a 'verified station' but does not provide additional format details, examples, or constraints beyond what is in 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 states a specific operation: querying real-time ICY stream metadata for a station in the RoamDial directory. It distinguishes this from a general station lookup by emphasizing live now-playing metadata, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like get_station or search_stations.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'real-time ICY stream metadata for a verified station,' suggesting it should be used when current track/show information is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the payload composition, which helps an agent decide whether a fetch is worth it, but it says nothing about missing/invalid IDs, external Wikipedia dependency timing, or freshness of listener stats.

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 with no filler; every clause contributes either the action or a category of returned data.

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 explain return values, and one fully documented parameter plus strong annotations leaves little uncovered. Only edge-case behavior for an unknown ID is unaddressed.

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 schema itself gives the 12-character hex form plus a slug-id example. The description's 'by ID or slug-id' restates that rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('detailed profile of a station') and an enumeration of what the profile contains (broadcast metadata, Wikipedia summary, listener stats, similar stations). It is clearly distinguishable from search_stations and get_now_playing, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 'by ID or slug-id' implicitly tells the agent this is the lookup tool for when you already hold an identifier, which is the practical discriminator versus search_stations. There are no explicit exclusions or stated preconditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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?

The annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so behavior is largely covered structurally. The description adds that stations are 'verified' and return direct listenUrl and mapUrl, which is modest value beyond the annotations and mostly overlaps the output schema.

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 tight sentences: capability and filter dimensions first, return content second. No redundant phrasing and nothing that restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and all six parameters are documented in the schema. The only gap is behavioral detail around filter combination and empty results, which is minor for a read-only search tool.

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 each parameter has an example-rich description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description names the same five filter dimensions without adding syntax, precedence, or combination rules 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search live radio stations in the RoamDial directory) plus the five filter dimensions and the returned artifact (listenUrl, mapUrl). It is clearly distinguishable from the get_* siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: search when you have a keyword/country/genre/language rather than a known station, which is the role of the get_station sibling. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given, and there is no guidance on combining filters or handling zero results.

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, openWorldHint, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses nondeterministic random selection, a 2.5s latency budget, and that the result includes a sampled ICY track title. It does not say what happens when no station matches the filter, which is the main remaining gap.

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 with no filler: the core action, the optional filters, and the time budget all appear in order of importance. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 needn't explain return values, and the latency budget plus the nondeterminism note cover the operationally important behavior for a two-optional-param tool. The one omission is the empty-result / no-matching-station behavior, which matters for a randomized lookup with filters.

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 both parameters are already documented as optional genre and country inputs. The description only restates that these are optional constraints on the random pick, without adding format guidance beyond the schema's ISO-code and slug notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('pick a random live radio station from the 3D globe') plus a secondary action ('sample its current ICY track title'), which separates it from the deterministic siblings search_stations, get_station and get_now_playing. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It signals the use case (random discovery, optionally narrowed by country or genre) but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never points to search_stations or get_now_playing as the deterministic alternatives. An agent can infer the intent, but must reason about the selection itself.

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