Road incidents and closures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are 'current' plus forward-looking announced events, each carries location and severity ('how much they block'), and coverage spans both cities and provincial highways. It omits pagination/rate behavior, but the extra coverage-and-severity context earns a 4.

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 the resource catalogue before the examples. Slightly wasteful that the example clause is vaguely worded ('or network "Taipei", lat 25.0478, lon 121.517'), but nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does at a high level: each event has a location and a blocking/severity measure. The absence of any mention of result ordering, limit behavior, or the shape of the severity value is a modest gap for a 7-parameter query tool.

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 100%, so every parameter including enum values and defaults is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's examples do add a little by showing that network accepts city names alongside a coordinate pair, but no additional syntax or constraint detail is supplied.

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?

States a concrete resource set — accidents, roadworks, congestion, traffic control, weather closures plus announced events — and the geographic scope (cities and provincial highways). That is far more specific than the title 'Road incidents and closures'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like traffic_live or traffic_signs, which also deal with road conditions.

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?

Usage is only implied through two worked examples (network "freeway" + type "accident"; network "Taipei" with lat/lon), which show how to combine parameters but never say when to pick this tool over traffic_live, traffic_cameras, or traffic_signs. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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