find_ev_charging_stations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior, filtering options, default radius, and a detailed return list. However, it does not mention pagination, no-result behavior, or any potential rate limits, which would push it to a 5.

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 well-structured with an opening statement, a brief explanatory paragraph, and organized Args/Returns sections. It is slightly verbose with the sentence 'Essential for EV owners planning trips or evaluating potential charging stops,' but overall each part earns its place and it remains focused.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains return values, including 'Location name and operator, Available connector types, Charging speeds, Number of charging points, Access restrictions,' and 'Other relevant metadata.' It also covers key usage details like default radius and filter options, making it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explicitly defines each parameter with units, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'radius: Search radius in meters (defaults to 5000m/5km)' and 'connector_types: Optional list...'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Locate electric vehicle charging stations near a specific location' and elaborates as a specialized search tool. It distinctly differentiates itself from siblings like find_parking_facilities by focusing on EV charging infrastructure, connector types, and power delivery.

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 provides clear context: 'This specialized search tool' and 'Essential for EV owners planning trips or evaluating potential charging stops.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, missing the 'when-not/alternatives' level required for a 5.

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