get_fiber_intel

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

Describes return format (GeoJSON FeatureCollection with detailed properties) and carrier/route_type options. Consistent with readOnlyHint annotation; no contradictions. Adds significant behavioral context beyond 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?

Description is moderately long but each sentence adds value: scenario, example, params, return, exclusions. Front-loaded with key use cases. Slightly verbose but efficient.

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 3 params, no required params, no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, examples, and exclusions. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. No gaps for read-only 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?

Adds meaning by listing allowed values for carrier and route_type, and provides example usage. However, the include_sources parameter is not described in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. Partially compensates but incomplete.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb 'get fiber intelligence' and resources: fiber routes, dark-fiber availability. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding use cases for get_facility and analyze_site.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (scoring sites, mapping routes, assessing dark-fiber) and when-not-to (counting providers, IX density) with sibling tool references. Includes an example with parameters.

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