get_fiber_intel

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

Disclosures that the tool is read-only (consistent with annotations) and returns a GeoJSON FeatureCollection with specific properties. No contradictions 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, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the use case, includes an example, and provides all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (GeoJSON with detailed property fields), parameter options, and usage context. The only minor gap is the missing 'include_sources' parameter.

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 description explains two of three parameters (carrier and route_type) with enum lists and context, but does not mention the 'include_sources' parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates partially but not fully.

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 states the tool's purpose: scoring fiber depth, mapping long-haul routes, assessing dark-fiber availability. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 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?

Explicitly states when to use (scoring fiber depth, mapping routes, assessing dark-fiber) and when not to use (counting single-facility fiber providers or IX scores), with correct alternative tool names. Includes an example query.

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