md_traffic_incidents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context beyond that: 'real-time', 'updates continuously', and the CHART (MDOT SHA) data source. However, it does not disclose output format, pagination, or latency, which would have been useful, but is not critical for a no-parameter live feed.

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 three sentences: core purpose first, then examples of included events, then data source and update frequency. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers what it returns (active incidents), the types included, and the source. It lacks a detailed response structure, but without an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results at a basic level.

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 confirms this with 100% coverage (empty properties object). Since there is nothing to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description offers no parameter explanation but none is needed.

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 'Get active traffic incidents on Maryland highways in real-time' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates incident types (accidents, disabled vehicles, debris, construction) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like md_traffic_closures or md_traffic_speeds.

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 when needing incident data, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over related Maryland traffic tools. There is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance, though the scope is clear enough for basic inference.

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