get_toilet_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what happens for an unknown ID (error vs empty result). A 3 reflects a minimal-value description against already-rich annotations.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but perhaps too terse given the parameter gap.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what 'details' are returned (accessibility, hours, location, etc.) and what happens on a missing ID. For a simple one-parameter lookup this is adequate to call the tool but leaves the agent guessing about the result.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate; 'by ID' does clarify that toilet_id is an identifier rather than a name or coordinates, but nothing about its expected format or source. Minimal but not useless.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (details for a public toilet) and scopes it with 'by ID', so it is clearly a single-record lookup. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling find_nearest_toilets, which is presumably how an agent obtains the ID in the first place.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus find_nearest_toilets or any search tool, and no note that a valid toilet_id must first be obtained from another call. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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