get_connectivity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the empty-return fallback and clarifies that the result contains real connections, named tracts, and citations, not a reinterpreted query. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the 'get' naming and query semantics make that reasonably clear.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the edge-case behavior is added as a second sentence that earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the minimum input size, the output content, and the fallback behavior. It does not address invalid IDs or alternative tools, but neither is essential for a simple getter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that region_ids identifies the set of regions being queried and adds the important minimum-cardinality rule that fewer than two IDs yields an empty result. It does not define the exact ID format, but this is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 what the tool computes: real connectivity between a given set of regions, including existing connections and named tracts touching them, with citations. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling search, rendering, and path-finding tools.

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?

It gives clear context: the tool should be used when you have a set of regions and want actual inter-region connectivity. It also warns that fewer than two region_ids returns empty rather than reinterpreting the request, providing an explicit usage constraint.

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