get_municipal_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and documents parameters, but does not disclose potential behavior like sorting, distance calculation method, or error cases. It's adequate but not rich.

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 one clear sentence followed by a structured args list. Every line is informative and there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose immediately.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers all 5 parameters and the use case, making it complete enough for a read-only lookup tool. Minor gaps like district code definitions or caveats are not critical.

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%, and the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., latlng format with example, range in meters, districts as codes, limit default, offset pagination). This adds value beyond the schema's bare types, though district code specifics are omitted.

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 'Get public library locations in Prague' – a specific verb (get) applied to a specific resource (public library locations) with a geographic scope (Prague). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bicycle_counters or get_air_quality_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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (when needing public library locations in Prague) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list confirms no overlapping tool, so context is sufficient.

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