ecobici_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that the data is 'live' (real-time), mentions the throttling constraint for the full snapshot option, and implies read-only behavior through data retrieval context. However, it doesn't specify rate limits beyond throttling, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid parameters.

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 perfectly sized at three sentences with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage patterns, and ends with an important behavioral note about throttling. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information for tool selection and invocation.

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 (5 parameters with interaction patterns), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, all parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and key behavioral constraints. The output schema will document the response structure, so the description appropriately focuses on selection and invocation guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles only provide basic labels), the description adds substantial value by explaining the semantic purpose of all parameters. It clarifies that station_id retrieves data for one station, near_lat/near_lng + radius_m finds closest stations, and omitting all gets a full snapshot. This goes well beyond what the schema provides, compensating fully for the coverage gap.

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's purpose: retrieving live bike/dock availability from ECOBICI using GBFS. It specifies the exact resource (ECOBICI bike/dock availability) and the data source (GBFS), distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools like air_quality_now or crime_hotspots. The verb 'retrieve' is implied through the context of availability data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different parameter combinations: use station_id for a single station, use near_lat/near_lng + radius_m for closest stations, or omit all for a full snapshot (with a throttling warning). It clearly distinguishes between these three usage scenarios, helping the agent select the appropriate approach based on the user's needs.

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