ev_charge_finder

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool finds stations with connector and availability details, but it does not mention any behavior such as rate limits, data source freshness, error handling when no stations are found, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other annotations.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by operation details. The final lines 'Search by Location' and 'Search by Coordinates Point' are slightly redundant given the operation names, but the overall structure is clear and no words are wasted.

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 tool has two operations, nested args, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the essential operation/parameter mapping but omits details about the return format (other than 'connector and availability details'), pagination, filtering options, or error behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps.

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 covers only operation and args generically, but the actual parameters (near, lat, lng) are only documented in the description. The description lists them as required but does not explain the expected formats (e.g., whether 'near' is a city name, whether lat/lng need decimal degrees). Thus it adds some meaning beyond the schema but not enough to fully clarify the input semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Find EV charging stations by location name or by coordinates, with connector and availability details.' It uses a specific verb (find) and resource (EV charging stations), and the two operations (search_by_location, search_by_coordinates_point) further clarify the scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like driving_directions or waze, which focus on routes/navigation.

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 provides usage guidance by explicitly listing the two operations and their required parameters, telling the agent when to use search_by_location (provide a location name) vs search_by_coordinates_point (provide lat, lng). However, it does not discuss alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to prefer a sibling tool like local_business_data), so it slightly misses the full 'when to use vs alternatives' ideal.

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