run_odin_spider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output format (GeoJSON) but does not discuss side effects, performance, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by bulleted parameter explanations. No redundant or overly verbose content; every sentence adds value.

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 purpose, output, and parameters well. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return structure. However, it lacks information on error handling, authentication, or data source, which would further enhance completeness.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section adds significant value by providing examples, value lists, and ranges (e.g., gemeente examples, mode options, top_n range 1-100, include_internal explanation). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 generates origin-destination desire lines (spider diagram) for a municipality and returns GeoJSON with arc geometries. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output type, though not explicitly differentiating from similar OD tools like run_odin_spider_profile.

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 parameter details (e.g., mode, motive, top_n) that imply when to use the tool, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like run_odin_query or run_odin_compare.

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