get_transmission_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are from OSM and that the endpoint is rate-limited. It also notes the default voltage floor. But it omits response format, geometry details, pagination behavior, and error semantics, which are critical for an unannotated 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 one telegraphic sentence, front-loaded with the resource name. Every clause—source, attributes, filter mechanism, default, and rate limit—adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain behavior and return values. It lists returned attributes and key filters, but doesn't specify the response structure (e.g., GeoJSON, array shape) or pagination/limit semantics beyond a bare rate-limit warning. This is adequate for selection but incomplete for full invocation confidence.

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 descriptions cover all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Filter by country/bbox' and '220kV+ default' merely restate schema property descriptions without adding new meaning. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 opens with 'HV transmission lines from OSM', clearly identifying the resource and source. It enumerates returned attributes (voltage, operator, cables, coordinates) and mentions filtering, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_power_plants.

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 indicates filtering by country/bbox and a default 220kV+ threshold, implying use cases for high-voltage network queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide usage exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from resource naming.

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