road_find_charger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by describing the output (JSON sorted by distance, real-time status, plug types, power, operator) and noting the data source is open and free. No contradictions found.

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 a brief intro, source attribution, analogy, and bullet-pointed return fields. It is concise yet informative, with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description covers the essential aspects: data source, search capability, real-time status, and output fields. It is complete for a tool that finds chargers, including information about open data and no authentication.

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 description mentions parameters only indirectly (e.g., 'real-time availability' maps to include_details). The input schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (range, examples, defaults). Since schema description coverage is 0% (meaning the top-level description doesn't list parameters), the tool description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 tool finds EV charging stations near a location in Switzerland, specifies data source (ich-tanke-strom.ch), and includes key details like real-time availability, plug types, and charging power. The analogy to a car's navigation feature reinforces the purpose. It is well-differentiated from siblings like road_charger_status.

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 usage context: searching for nearby charging stations with open data. It mentions no API key required and real-time status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like road_charger_status for checking a specific station's status, which would be helpful.

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