get_webcams_by_location

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with potentially open-ended results. The description adds the location-filtering behavior but doesn't disclose details like default limit, pagination, or that results may be empty for invalid codes. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the supported location types. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative about usage context without becoming verbose.

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-only list tool with a rich output schema and 100% parameter documentation, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how location_type and location_code interact (e.g., whether location_code must match the type), but the schema and enums cover most of this. The openWorldHint annotation also signals that results may vary, which is useful context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds the high-level concept that location_type and location_code work together to filter by location, but it doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('webcams') with a clear location filter scope ('country, region, continent, or city'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_webcams_by_category and get_nearby_webcams by naming the location dimension, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 the tool is for location-based webcam queries, which is clear from the name and description. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_webcams or get_nearby_webcams, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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