md_traffic_closures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about content (planned and emergency closures with start/end times) but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like data freshness, pagination, or response details. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds valuable detail about the content without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned (closures), scope (Maryland highways), types (planned/emergency), and includes start/end times. It could mention return format or update frequency, but these are not essential given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is fully self-contained (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active road closures on Maryland highways'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like md_traffic_incidents and md_traffic_cameras. It identifies the exact geographic scope (Maryland) and the type of data (closures).

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 implies usage by its clear resource focus—active closures vs. incidents. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the Maryland-specific wording and tool name provide sufficient contextual guidance. A brief note about when to use this over md_traffic_incidents would elevate it further.

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