road_classify_road

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return format (JSON with road segments and specific fields like road name, type, surface, etc.) and data source (geo.admin.ch / swisstopo), going beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with bullet points and emojis, front-loading the main purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, providing use cases and output details. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 complexity (multiple classification dimensions), the presence of output schema (mentioned), annotations, and sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers purpose, data source, use cases, and return structure, leaving no major gaps for an AI agent to understand invocation.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (latitude, longitude, limit, tolerance) in German. The description does not add new meaning beyond listing the classification categories returned, but it does not repeat parameter details. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it classifies roads at a location using the official Swiss road network (swissTLM3D), listing specific categories like road type, functional class, surface, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on different functions (e.g., chargers, traffic, sharing).

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 explicit use cases (e.g., 'Is this a motorway or a local road?') and notes that no API key is required for Phase 4 tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools cover different domains, making the context clear.

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