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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it 'Returns matching networks with their locations and IDs,' which provides some return context, but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as result limits, pagination, or empty-result handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second adds return information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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's simplicity (one required parameter), the rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core functionality and the nature of the results, though it might explicitly note that it only searches by text name and not by proximity. Overall, the context is adequate for correct selection and 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the query parameter, including a clear description and examples. The tool description only reinforces that the search is by city or country name, adding no new semantic details beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find bike-sharing networks by city or country name.' It clearly defines the tool's scope, and the search-by-name aspect distinguishes it from siblings like list_networks and get_network, though without explicitly naming 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_networks or get_network. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the intended scenario beyond the basic action, leaving the agent without clearer usage context.

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