md_traffic_signs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it shows 'current messages' and lists example content types, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like data freshness, source, or formatting. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable 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 with the primary action front-loaded: 'Get dynamic message sign (DMS) content on Maryland highways.' The second sentence adds useful examples without waste. 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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states exactly what data is returned (DMS content) and the scope (Maryland highways). The simplicity of the tool is matched by a sufficient description, and no critical information 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter explanation, and the empty schema is fully accurate. No additional semantic burden on the description.

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 'Get dynamic message sign (DMS) content on Maryland highways' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the content types ('alerts, travel times, events') and distinguishes it from sibling Maryland traffic tools like incidents or cameras.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need current DMS messages on Maryland highways. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know to use this tool for electronic sign content.

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