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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output format (GeoJSON) but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.

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 unnecessary words. However, given the need for more detail, it is slightly under-informative. It earns a 4 for efficiency but lacks completeness.

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 has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It states purpose and output format adequately, but lacks usage context and parameter explanation. An agent could use it but might select the wrong tool among many siblings.

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 0%, so the description should explain the parameter. It does not mention the 'category' parameter or its enum values. Although the schema is clear with enum definitions, the description adds no value beyond what the schema provides, and fails to guide the agent on how to use the parameter effectively.

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 'Get', resource 'mobility locations', scope 'Ville de Luxembourg', and output format 'GeoJSON features'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_city_parking or get_cfl_parking by specifying 'mobility locations' which encompasses multiple categories.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools for similar data (e.g., get_city_parking, get_geo_features), there is no hint about when this tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it.

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