road_counter_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'without real-time data', 'site table cached for 24 hours (rarely changes)', and required API key. No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) with clear structure: purpose statement, caching note, requirement, and bulleted return fields. Every sentence adds value; no waste.

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 low complexity (simple list tool), with annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral notes, and return format comprehensively. No gaps.

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_description_coverage is 0%, but the schema itself has adequate descriptions for parameters (latitude, longitude, radius_km, limit). The description does not add extra semantics for input parameters beyond what's in the schema; it focuses on output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers inputs sufficiently.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'Swiss traffic counting stations', and the scope 'near a location (without real-time data)'. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning this is to discover stations before querying road_traffic_counters.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to discover available stations before querying road_traffic_counters', providing clear when-to-use and alternative. Also mentions caching duration and required environment variable for registration.

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