next_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the 'putOutTonight' flag and its use for reminders, and clarifies address handling (free text or ID, ambiguity resolution). No destructive behavior is described, which is appropriate for a read-only tool.

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 concise, covering key information in a few sentences without unnecessary verbosity. It could be improved with bullet points, but remains clear and 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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the return value (next collection date per fraction, with flag), address format, and ambiguity handling. No major gaps.

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% but the description adds value by explaining that 'address' can be a free-text string or a PerfectWaste addressID, and that ambiguous queries prefer 8700 Horsens. This goes beyond the schema's basic type 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 explicitly states 'Return the next upcoming waste collection date for each fraction at a given Horsens address.' It lists specific fractions and the 'putOutTonight' flag, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'collection_calendar' and 'find_address'.

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 mentions that ambiguous queries prefer 8700 Horsens, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'collection_calendar' or 'find_address'. The usage context is implied but not directly compared.

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