get_bike_sharing

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only states 'live' availability, but doesn't mention response format, limitations, or whether it's read-only. For a data retrieval tool, the lack of any behavioral detail beyond 'live' is a gap.

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?

Single sentence with no waste, front-loads the core action and resource. Effectively concise.

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?

Simple tool but with 2 params and no output schema, description should explain parameter usage and expected results. It doesn't mention how to use query or available_only, nor what 'availability' includes (bikes vs docks). Incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 50% (query described, available_only not). Description adds no parameter explanation. Agents cannot infer the purpose or format of 'available_only' from the description or schema. Description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (live Vel'OK bike-sharing availability) with geographic scope (southern Luxembourg). Distinguishes from siblings like get_carsharing and get_city_mobility.

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?

Implied usage: use for bike-sharing availability in southern Luxembourg, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references.

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