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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context: the data comes from official feeds and is not a crash database, and it describes the return structure (counts by hour/weekday, incident types, durations). Rate limits or auth needs are not mentioned, but that is minor for a read-only 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 front-loaded with a clear statement of what the tool returns, followed by helpful usage examples and a data caveat. It is appropriately sized and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, usage, and return content. It covers the key caveat about data source, though it could be slightly more explicit about output format.

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 75%, with days, place, and center having descriptions; radius_km lacks a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the radius unit or effect). With coverage near the high threshold, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it returns historical incident patterns around a place, by hour/weekday with incident types and durations. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_incidents or get_lane_closures, which could cause ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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 provides concrete example questions that indicate when to use the tool (e.g., 'is this intersection bad at rush hour'). It does not state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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