Get a specific NYC restroom and its latest inspection status

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable context beyond this: that only NYC Parks restrooms have inspection data, and others will return 'no_inspection_data'. This clarifies expected behavior in edge cases. No contradiction 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential caveats. There is no fluff or repetition. It efficiently conveys purpose, mode of lookup, and important coverage limitation.

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?

This is a simple read-only lookup tool with a well-specified schema. The description covers the main behavior, the search modes, and the critical data-availability caveat. Since there is no output schema, mentioning 'condition ratings' sufficiently indicates the return type. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description does not add meaningful new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, aside from restating the two lookup modes (by name or coordinates). It appropriately avoids redundancy, earning the baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool's function: looking up one specific NYC public restroom by name or nearest coordinates and reporting its most recent condition ratings. The singular focus distinguishes it from sibling tool find_restrooms, which likely handles multiple results. The title reinforces this specific purpose.

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 (when you need a single restroom's status, either by name or location). It also clarifies the scope of inspection data (NYC Parks only) and what to expect for other operators. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative find_restrooms or state a 'use this instead of' rule, so it falls short of full guidance.

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