site_reach_score

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the methodology and that it returns a score with breakdown, but lacks details on data sources, performance, or side effects. Acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Concise and front-loaded; every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Covers main functionality and required parameters, but omits explanation of optional parameters (weights, categories) and error conditions. Output schema exists, so return structure is less critical, but input completeness could be better. Adequate for moderate complexity.

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 only 17% (only mode has property-level description). Description adds value by explaining units and providing an example, but does not cover the optional parameters (weights, categories) or their semantics fully. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states it computes a composite reach score for a single OOH site using gravity-weighted POI density, junction density, and category diversity. Differentiates from siblings like isochrone (generates isochrone), catchment_pois (returns POIs), and compare_sites (compares multiple sites).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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