get_fiber_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the return value structure (score, near_net_bucket, etc.) and logic (near-net distance, carrier count, single-carrier risk). No indication of side effects beyond read-only. Slight gap: no mention of rate limits or auth requirements, but annotations suffice.

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 paragraph of around 100 words, which is appropriately sized. It is front-loaded with the key use case, followed by example, parameter details, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, though slightly dense.

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 tool has 3 parameters (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully addresses the return structure and logic. Differentiation from a large set of sibling tools is clear and complete. No missing information for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by stating lat/lon are required with ranges (-90..90, -180..180) and radius_km has default 50 and range 5-200. It also provides an example with values. This adds clarity.

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: getting fiber-readiness verdict for one parcel or site using lat/lon. It specifies the resource (FIBER-READINESS / connectivity) and distinguishes from siblings (get_fiber_intel, analyze_site), achieving specific verb+resource+scope with clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use (for parcel connectivity verdict) and when not to use (avoid for metro routes or multi-factor site scores), providing concrete alternatives (get_fiber_intel, analyze_site). An example query further clarifies usage.

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