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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (address, connectors, cost, etc.), which is not present in the input schema or annotations. No contradictions 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key return fields without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly concise.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and where to get the input, with no missing information.

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 already provides a clear description for the 'id' parameter ('Open Charge Map station ID — get from search or nearby results'). The description repeats this guidance but does not add new semantic meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 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 the action ('Get full details'), the resource ('specific EV charging station by ID'), and enumerates the specific data fields returned (address, GPS coordinates, connectors, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ev.charging.nearby' and 'ev.charging.search' which are for listing/searching.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use the station ID from search or nearby results, providing clear context for when and how to obtain the input parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient.

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