Street closures and detours

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world read, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds data provenance (published by CDOT), but it omits a real behavioral trait: active_only defaults to true, so by default only currently active closures are returned – a filter an agent must know about.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope are stated immediately. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter tool with a default-on active_only filter and a spatial radius mode, the description is thin on how the parameters interact and when to use each mode.

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 75% and the 'near' parameter is well documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond restating the citywide-vs-near duality, and active_only has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving that parameter's effect unexplained.

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?

Names the specific resource (street and lane closures and detours), the publisher (CDOT), and the two query scopes (citywide or near a location). An agent can tell what it returns, though it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings like get_traffic_crashes_near or get_capital_projects_near.

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 phrase 'citywide or near a location' implies the two modes of use and hints that 'near' is the spatial selector, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when 'near' should be omitted, and no routing to alternatives for adjacent data.

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