get_safety_grade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (though the name implies a get), whether any authentication or special permissions are needed, or any rate limits or error conditions. The only behavioral hint is that lower grades are safer, which is more about output interpretation than tool behavior. This is a significant gap given the lack of 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 a single sentence with no fluff, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and an output schema—it omits essential guidance about usage and parameters. The 'lower grades are safer' note is useful but does not make up for the lack of detail elsewhere. It is not inappropriately long, but it is too short to be effective.

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?

The tool has a moderately complex schema (3 params, enum, default) and an output schema, yet the description only conveys the general concept of a safety grade. It does not explain how to interpret the region or category, nor when to use the tool. While the output schema may cover return values, the description still needs to provide enough context to call the tool correctly, which it does not. The absence of any usage context makes it incomplete.

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%, meaning the description adds no information about the parameters. The schema includes 'region', 'category' (with an enum), and 'publication_year', but the description does not explain what 'region' signifies, what each category means, or how publication_year affects the grade. The description fails completely to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 an explicit verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('safety grade'), and 'official relative' adds valuable context. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on nearby amenities or demographic data. However, it does not specify the form of the grade (e.g., letter, numeric scale) or what 'relative' compares against, leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The description names no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and gives no indication of which scenarios call for a safety grade rather than, say, nearby hospitals or car-free neighborhoods. The agent is left to infer applicability entirely from the name.

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