get_mobility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It enumerates the types of data returned (daily demand curve, flow signals, transit analysis) and adds a limitation ('usage rhythms rather than instantaneous state'). It does not explicitly state side effects or rate limits, but the tool's read-only nature is evident from the name and description, and the provided detail is substantial.

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: the first lists the tool's outputs, and the second provides a concise usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, output categories, and intended use case. With no output schema, it does not explain return shape, but the enumerated signal types provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities. The schema covers parameters, so nothing critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (month, demandDays, mobilityDays) beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since the schema is complete. It stays at baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('mobility signals'), breaking it down into distinct components (demand curve, flow signals, transit impact). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting 'usage rhythms' with 'instantaneous state.'

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 a clear use case ('understanding usage rhythms') and implicitly excludes alternative use cases via 'rather than instantaneous state.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide a full when/when-not matrix, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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