Road message signs

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world lookup. The description adds useful context about what the signs display and that the data is current, but it does not discuss output shape, pagination behavior, or any operational limits beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with the core concept front-loaded and a concrete example following immediately. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

Given seven parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns and how to start using it. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying the return format or distinguishing it from nearby traffic data tools, but it is broadly complete.

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 parameter meanings are already well documented in the input schema. The description's example adds a small amount of practical context for network, keyword, and direction, but it does not meaningfully extend understanding of the other parameters.

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 clearly identifies the resource: live messages displayed on changeable road signs, including travel times, congestion, incidents, and roadworks. It is distinguishable from generic traffic tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as traffic_live or traffic_events.

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 implied by phrases like "show right now" and the example invocation with network, keyword, and direction. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over traffic_live, traffic_events, or traffic_cameras, nor any when-not-to-use condition.

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