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

The description mentions 'live connector availability', indicating real-time data, which adds behavioral context beyond a generic 'get'. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to explicitly state that the operation is read-only, safe, or whether it requires authentication.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on return format, parameter usage beyond schema, limitations, or error conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete for a confident agent invocation.

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 50% (query has description, available_only does not). The overall description mentions 'live connector availability', which loosely relates to available_only, but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 action (Get), resource (Chargy public EV charging stations), and a key feature (live connector availability). It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different domains like parking, air quality, and traffic.

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 implies use for EV charging queries but provides no explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other transportation tools). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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