Search French bike-share networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that results include unsupported networks with a reason — but says nothing about ordering, result count behavior, or how the limit interacts with that unsupported list.

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 short sentences with no waste; the core search capability is front-loaded and the return-value note follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing routing or contract information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is unnecessary, and the description still flags the non-obvious 'unsupported + why' payload. The only gap is the unexplained limit parameter (default 5, max 20), which matters for an open-world search that may match many networks.

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 coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema itself, and 'limit' carries only min/max/default with no prose. The description's 'by city, area or name' merely restates the query parameter's own description and adds no meaning for 'limit', so the schema is doing essentially all the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find docked bike-share networks') and enumerates the matching dimensions (city, area, name). It also clarifies the output contract ('network ids') and the downstream tools it feeds, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces versus the station-level siblings.

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?

By saying it returns network ids 'for nearby_stations and get_station', it implicitly establishes itself as the prerequisite discovery step before those tools. That is clear contextual guidance, though it never states explicit exclusions or when not to use it (e.g., if you already have a network id).

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