plan_fiber_leadin

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral context: 'INDICATIVE auto-routed road corridors — NOT engineered alignments; subject to survey, DBYD and carrier confirmation.' This goes beyond the annotation to manage expectations.

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 slightly lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then example, then parameter details, then output summary, then caveats. Every sentence contributes value, though some redundancy could be removed.

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 absence of output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description provides complete contextual information: inputs, outputs (length, GeoJSON, diversity, cost), limitations, and alternatives. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: from (lat,lng or address), to (similar), n (1-6, default 4), fibre (720F/1440F), bore_m (optional metres). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Plan N diverse, road-following fibre lead-in routes from a candidate data-center site to a carrier hotel / POP, with indicative build cost and a route-diversity read.' It uses a specific verb ('Plan') and resource ('fibre lead-in routes'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_site 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 states when to use the tool (to get diverse fibre routes between a site and POP) and when not to use it (not for single site-suitability score or fibre-provider footprints), providing alternative tools. It also includes an example query, which clarifies usage.

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