fcc_broadband_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful return-value context (providers, technology types, advertised speeds). However, it does not disclose potential behavioral caveats such as data vintage, coverage granularity, or behavior when no location is provided.

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?

Three succinct sentences, each adding value: what it does, what it returns, and how to provide input. No wasted words or repetition of schema fields.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the key return elements and input requirements. It doesn't note whether filters are optional or address/lat-long precedence, but the high schema coverage and read-only annotation make the tool sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that latitude/longitude or address can be used for location lookup, but it does not explain the filter parameters (technology, speed_upload, speed_download) beyond the schema. The schema carries the load for those.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check broadband coverage at a specific location') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fcc_broadband_providers by emphasizing location-based coverage rather than provider-level data. It also enumerates the key return elements, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when needing coverage at a specific location) and specifies location input options. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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