road_charger_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns real-time status (free/occupied/out of service) and that it covers all Swiss charging points. No contradictions. However, it could mention rate limits or data freshness.

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?

Description is short and well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating purpose. It uses bullet points for return values. Slightly redundant with schema but not excessive. Could be trimmed slightly.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what results to expect. It mentions the output format (JSON with status categories) and workflow dependency (road_find_charger). No gaps observed.

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 input schema already provides a detailed description for the station_ids parameter, including an example and the default behavior (empty for overall statistics). The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond restating these two modes. Schema coverage is 0% by metric, but the schema itself is good, so the tool description adds minimal extra value.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Check real-time availability of EV charging stations' and distinguishes two modes (specific IDs or overall statistics). It also references a sibling tool (road_find_charger) for obtaining IDs, clarifying the tool's role versus related tools.

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?

Directly advises 'Use road_find_charger first to get station IDs, then use this tool to check their current status.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool and provides a clear worklow step. It also explains the two distinct use cases (specific stations vs. overall statistics).

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