Get Metro Fiber

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it explains the two distinct output shapes depending on whether the market param is supplied, includes dark-fiber coverage, and includes a citation requirement ('Cite DC Hub'). The only minor gap is not stating rate limits or freshness, but that is not required given the strong annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the key use case, includes concrete examples, and packs in essential return-format details. It is dense but every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly shortened by trimming the detailed return schema (since an output schema exists), but the operational guidance justifies the length.

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's modest complexity (one optional parameter, no required params, output schema present, annotations covering read-only/idempotent), the description is complete. It covers when to use, what it returns in both modes, the data source/citation, and when NOT to use it. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the market parameter thoroughly. The description adds value by giving concrete examples ('Dallas-Fort Worth', 'dallas', 'ashburn'), clarifying slug vs name, and explaining the behavioral difference between omitting market (ranked list) vs providing it (deep dive). This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 is highly specific: it names the verb 'get', the resource 'metro fiber profile', and enumerates exact fields (carrier count, route-miles, on-net buildings, density score, tier, IX points, carrier hotels). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining what it is NOT for (parcel-level verdicts, geometry mapping). An agent can clearly understand what this tool does and how it differs from get_fiber_readiness and get_fiber_intel.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a user asks which US metro has the DEEPEST fiber, or wants the metro-level fiber profile of a market.' It also names the two sibling alternatives and the conditions that select them: do NOT use for parcel-level latency/connectivity (use get_fiber_readiness) or route geometry for maps (use get_fiber_intel). This is exemplary routing guidance.

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