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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the result shape and scope, but it does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or whether this is strictly a read-only operation. There is nothing misleading, but the operational behavior is only partially disclosed.

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?

Two sentences cover the resource type, scope, examples, and result fields with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause contributes meaning.

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?

For a read-oriented search tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what results contain and the geographic scope, though it does not mention pagination limits or that the schema's count/range defaults exist; these are already in the schema and are minor gaps.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents latitude, longitude, count, range_m, and form_factors. The description adds only the high-level concept of searching 'near a coordinate', which does not replace or enrich the per-parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 ('Find') and names the exact resource ('free-floating shared vehicles') with concrete examples and a geographic scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_docking_stations by emphasizing 'free-floating' and 'all Norwegian operators'.

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 when to use this tool through the phrase 'free-floating shared vehicles' and the operator scope, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as find_docking_stations or get_vehicle_positions. Usage context is clear but exclusions are left to inference.

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