deepstate_radiation_stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond 'live'. It does not state refresh cadence, whether the ~565 stations are returned in full or paginated, whether results are cached, or what 'live' actually guarantees. Only the dataset provenance and approximate result size are added value.

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?

A single tight sentence with the most identifying facts (liveness, resource, region, source, scale) front-loaded and zero filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, but the description still leaves two material gaps: the undocumented 'detail' parameter and the unresolved overlap with the 'radiation' sibling. For a no-annotation tool with a 0%-covered parameter, this is under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'detail' parameter: the schema gives only a default of 'short' with no title-level meaning or allowed values. The description never mentions 'detail' at all, so the agent cannot know what values it accepts or what changes between 'short' and any fuller mode.

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?

Names a specific resource (live radiation monitoring stations), a geography (Ukraine), a provenance (DeepState) and a scale (~565 stations), so an agent knows exactly what dataset this returns. It fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'radiation', which plausibly covers overlapping data — that sibling differentiation is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick this over the sibling 'radiation', whether it is a live feed vs. a station registry snapshot, or whether it needs to be combined with another tool for readings. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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