run_odin_spider_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns distributions and centroids, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid gemeente), performance implications, or data freshness. It is adequate for a read operation but lacks depth on side effects or edge cases.

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 (about 10 lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is cleanly formatted. No extraneous information; every sentence contributes to understanding. It achieves high density of useful content.

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 the complexity (3 params, 1 required) and existence of output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters well but lacks context on sibling differentiation, error handling, or typical usage scenarios. It is complete for basic invocation but insufficient for nuanced selection among related tools.

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%, but the description's Args section adds meaning: it explains 'gemeente' as municipality name with examples, 'mode' as transport filter with examples, and 'motive' as trip purpose filter. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only provides types. It does not enumerate valid values but provides practical guidance.

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 retrieves demographics of travelers to/from a municipality, listing specific return fields (sex, age, education, etc.) and home location centroids. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, differentiating it from siblings like run_odin_profile or run_odin_spider by combining 'spider' (origin-destination) and 'profile' (demographics) concepts.

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 implies usage context (when needing demographic breakdowns by mode/motive for a municipality) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives among 15 sibling tools. No when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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