lyon_accessibility_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds a useful behavioral note that missing data is not treated as accessible, but lacks details on read-only nature, authentication, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. 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?

With 4 parameters lacking descriptions and a complex domain (accessibility check), the brief description does not cover parameter usage or output specifics, leaving significant gaps despite an output schema.

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 description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters (needs, stops, origin, destination). Meaning and expected format are left to inference.

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 includes a specific verb ('Vérifie l'accessibilité') and resource ('arrêts ou trajet'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lyon_trip_options which plan routes, not check accessibility.

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 for checking wheelchair and step-free accessibility of stops or a trip, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyon_nearby_facilities or lyon_trip_options.

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