get_playgrounds

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Get' and documents pagination with limit/offset, but does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. This is 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 a single sentence followed by a neatly formatted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 description covers all parameters and implies a straightforward read-only query. Given the existence of an output schema and the absence of annotations, it is largely complete, though it does not specify behavior when no filters are provided.

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 Args list provides detailed explanations for all five parameters: latlng format, range units, comma-separated districts, limit default, and offset purpose. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Get public playground locations in Prague', which clearly specifies the action (get), resource (public playground locations), and geographic scope (Prague). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bicycle_counters or get_parking_lots.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for playground location queries via geospatial parameters (latlng, range, districts). It gives implicit context for when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, preventing a 5.

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