get_bike_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the get operation and the constraint 'lon required if lat provided'. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or pagination. The explanation of parameter dependencies adds moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured 'Args:' section. Every line adds value, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently details parameters.

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 that an output schema is present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately. Minor omission: no mention of the scope (only London) or any usage limits. Still, it sufficiently informs the agent for basic invocation.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'lat: Latitude for location search', 'lon: Longitude', 'radius: Search radius in meters (default: 500)', and the relationship that lon is required if lat is provided. This significantly clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 what the tool does: 'Get Santander Cycles docking stations in London.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'Santander Cycles docking stations' are specific and unambiguous. Among sibling tools, none overlap, making it well-distinguished.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to. It provides parameter guidance (lat required if lon provided) but lacks context for usage scenarios. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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