get_waste_stations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination via offset, filtering via onlyMonitored/districts, and the radius parameter's unit (meters), which adds some transparency. However, it states results are 'sorted' without specifying the sort key (distance? name?), and it doesn't explain behavior when latlng/range are null (e.g., returns all stations in Prague).

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 structured as a one-line summary followed by six one-line parameter definitions. It is compact, scannable, and every line adds value. No fluff or redundant commentary.

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?

For a tool with six optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters with defaults and formats. The main omissions are the sorting criteria and the behavior with null location parameters, but the core invocation needs (parameter syntax, defaults) are well documented. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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%, so the Args section is the sole source of parameter meaning. It precisely defines latlng as 'latitude,longitude' with an example, range as meters, limit default 10, offset as pagination, onlyMonitored as a filter, and districts as comma-separated codes. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Get sorted waste collection stations in Prague,' which clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (waste collection stations), and the geographic scope (Prague). Among the sibling tools focused on different city datasets (bike counters, air quality, parking lots), this resource name unambiguously distinguishes it.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include other get_* tools for different data types, and while the resource name makes it obvious which dataset it queries, there is no statement about when to prefer this over, say, get_city_districts or a general search tool. It also doesn't describe prerequisites or typical use cases.

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