get_bicycle_counters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only operation with 'Get' but does not explain edge cases (e.g., null latlng/range) or default behavior. Return structure is covered by an output schema, but other behavioral context is sparse.

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 succinct one-sentence purpose followed by a structured argument list. Every line is informative and free of redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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?

All parameters are documented and the output schema covers return values, but the description does not clarify how latlng and range interact (e.g., if latlng is needed for range-based search) or what happens when both are null. This leaves minor ambiguity in a straightforward 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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with concrete meaning: latlng format, range units, limit default, and offset purpose. This is essential information that the schema lacks.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('bicycle counting stations in Prague'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_bicycle_detections, which focuses on detections rather than stations.

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 implies usage for spatial search (via latlng and range) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or specific scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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