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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is needed, what 'upcoming' means (time horizon), or how pagination works (e.g., the limit parameter effect). The description is too terse to provide adequate transparency.

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 eight-word sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters where only half have schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. An agent lacks details on output format, parameter constraints beyond defaults, and behavioral traits, making invocation uncertain.

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 50% (street and waste_type have descriptions, commune and limit do not). The description only adds context for commune ('for a Luxembourg commune') but offers no detail on limit's meaning or format for commune values. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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' and the resource 'upcoming municipal waste-collection dates', scoped to 'a Luxembourg commune'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_air_quality or get_traffic, as it is specific to waste collection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other get_* tools for municipal data). The description only implies usage when waste collection dates are needed, with no exclusions or when-not-to-use information.

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