reunion_get_speed_limits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the output fields and that data is per road side. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authorization needs, or side effects. For a read tool, minimal transparency is acceptable but could be improved.

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 concise with no fluff, front-loading the purpose and listing output fields efficiently. A slight improvement could be merging the last sentence with the applications, but it's well-structured.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: what data is returned, units, and use cases. It implicitly limits to Réunion via tool name. It does not explain parameter filtering but schema covers that. Overall quite complete.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'road number, axis' in the output context. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 that the tool returns speed-limit segments on Réunion's national roads, specifying verb (get), resource (speed limits), and scope (Réunion RN). It distinguishes itself from sibling road tools (classification, flow, traffic) by focusing on speed limits.

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 lists use cases: routing, speed-compliance, road-safety studies. While it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention when not to use, the stated applications provide clear context for appropriate usage.

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