state_transportation

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already communicates the read-only nature, and the description's 'Query' aligns with that. The description adds content scope (what data may be included) but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, return format, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides the key exclusion and alternative. No wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, all documented in the schema) and the presence of a readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It covers the scope and a key alternative, though it does not elaborate on query capabilities or response structure. Most gaps are filled by the schema.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It gives high-level context about the data domain but does not explain how to use parameters like 'q', 'where', or 'county'.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Query transportation data for a US state.' It lists examples of content (vehicle registrations, EV adoption, traffic data) and distinguishes itself from sibling state_* tools and real-time traffic modules. This is specific and 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 explicitly provides an alternative for real-time traffic: 'For real-time traffic, use state-specific traffic modules (e.g., md_traffic_*).' This gives a clear when-not-to-use and an alternative. However, it does not discuss when to prefer this over other transportation-related tools like bts_transport_stats, so guidance is partial.

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