qui_get_alternative_speed_limits

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the parameter-passing convention (path, query, body) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the endpoint URL, making the primary purpose immediately clear. The second sentence on argument passing is concise, though the generic instruction to include a body for a GET endpoint adds unnecessary noise.

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 the simple GET nature and presence of an output schema, the description covers the endpoint and argument convention adequately. However, it lacks usage context, specific parameter enumeration, and any caveats, leaving the agent to infer important details.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage and only a generic 'arguments' object. The description gives a general convention for passing path, query, and body values, but does not enumerate actual parameters (e.g., instanceID) except implicitly in the endpoint URL. For a GET operation, the instruction to include a JSON request body is likely irrelevant and could mislead.

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 explicitly names the exact GET endpoint for alternative speed limits on a specific instance, using a specific verb ('GET') and resource path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_toggle_alternative_speed_limits.

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 description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives. Usage is only implied by the 'GET' verb and tool name, but there is no explicit statement of appropriate context or exclusions.

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