get_road_situations

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds real value beyond them: severity scale 1-5 with direction, result ordering, Swedish-language message types, and a failure mode (isError: true when TRAFIKVERKET_API_KEY is missing/invalid or the API is unreachable). Missing only pagination/truncation behavior for the limit.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filters, ordering, language note, sibling routing, error behavior, and coverage in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every sentence adds information; the Swedish example types slightly repeat the schema's messageType description.

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?

With no output schema, the description still lists the returned fields (severity, road number, location, start/end time, coordinates) and explains the error shape, so an agent knows both what comes back and how failures surface. Nothing material is missing for a 6-optional-param read tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the county and point filters can be combined, and results are ordered by severity then distance, which tells the agent what `limit` actually truncates. The Swedish message-type examples duplicate the schema field slightly.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get current road incidents and disruptions on the Swedish state road network') and enumerates the exact content types covered. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_road_weather and states geographic coverage, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative ('Use get_road_weather for measured road conditions instead') and the condition that selects it, and states the geographic exclusion ('Sweden only'). Filter combinations (county and/or point+radius) are described as usage guidance rather than left to inference.

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