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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds context the agent would otherwise have to guess: available_now means a status younger than 2 hours, the price field is the lowest ad hoc price for a driver without a contract, and the caveat that operators report the data, so the price should be checked at the charger. That clarifies data freshness and provenance, which annotations cannot convey. It does not cover pagination or the behavior when no location argument is supplied, so it is not a 5.

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 the search modes and then the filters, and it contains little padding despite its density. The telegraphic fragment style ('Filters: ...', 'Each site: ...') is efficient, though the summary-of-return fields partially duplicates the output schema and makes the block longer than strictly necessary.

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 an 11-parameter, entirely optional, dual-mode lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers both modes, the filter semantics and the notable caveats well. The main remaining gap is that with zero required parameters, the description does not say what happens if neither city nor lat/lon is supplied (for example, a nationwide list, or an error).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters, and the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond it by defining semantics the schema only hints at: the 2-hour freshness rule behind available_now, the AFIR power class in results, the min_kw 150 = ultra-fast example, and the network slug examples (greenway, orlen, tesla, ionity). These are value-adding clarifications rather than restatements.

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 states a specific resource and source: public EV charging sites in Poland from the UDT register EIPA, searchable near a city or a lat/lon point, with a second mode (pass id) for a full site card. This is clearly more than a restatement of the name. However, it never names the closest siblings (get_ev_charging, get_ev_charging_prices), so an agent must infer on its own why it should choose this tool over 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 gives explicit invocation guidance: 'give city, or lat and lon with radius_km' and 'pass id for one site', which tells the agent how to pick between the two operating modes. It also hints at practical filtering uses ('min_kw (e.g. 150 for ultra-fast)'). It stops short of saying when not to use the tool or naming an alternative tool, so it does not reach a 5.

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