nc_get_taneo_info

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. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't elaborate on any special behaviors such as response format, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. For a simple no-parameter GET, 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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler—every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient, but it uses the vague term 'information' without specifying what kind of data is returned (e.g., schedules, routes, stations). An agent might wonder what exactly will be retrieved, though the purpose is clear enough for a simple info tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 specific verb 'Get information' and the precise resource 'Tanéo public transport network' with a defined service area. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from siblings like nc_get_transport_modes, which might cover broader transport topics.

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 clear context: this tool is for information about the Tanéo network in Greater Nouméa. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the specificity of the resource makes the usage scenario obvious. An agent can infer when to use this tool without confusion.

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