gbfs_list_systems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Search ... catalog' strongly implies a non-destructive read, and it discloses catalog size (1,000+ systems), which hints at result volume, but it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or whether results are filtered server-side.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the searchable facets. Nothing is repeated or padded; every clause carries 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and searchable scope adequately. However, with no output schema present, nothing describes the return shape or result ordering, leaving a modest gap for an agent deciding how to consume results.

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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds mild value by enumerating the fields query matches against (city, country, operator, system_id), but contributes no format or syntax detail beyond the schema examples.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus a clearly named resource (MobilityData systems.csv catalog of 1,000+ bikeshare/micromobility systems) and the searchable facets. It contrasts implicitly with single-entity siblings like gbfs_get_system, but never names them, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 the word 'Search' and the catalog scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. Notably, it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over gbfs_get_system for a known system_id, despite mentioning system_id as a search key.

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