road_find_sharing

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond that: it names the live data source (sharedmobility.ch / Swiss Federal Office of Energy), notes no API key is needed, and critically warns that a result with `completeness.complete: false` is partial and should be reported as such. That partial-result handling is genuine behavioral context not present in the 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the ordering (purpose → how it works → data source → returns) is logical. There is some padding, though: the 'like checking a mobility app' analogy and 'No API key required – completely open data!' are decorative, and the Returns block partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering structure, the description fills the remaining gaps: data provenance, live/real-time nature, and the partial-completeness caveat that the output schema alone would not convey. It is close to complete for a geographic lookup tool, lacking only explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0% at the top level because the single visible parameter is the `params` wrapper, which carries no description. The description loosely echoes the vehicle categories but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the nested schema already documents (enum-style vehicle types, radius range, only_available default), so it neither compensates for the wrapper gap nor extends the well-described inner properties.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Find shared mobility vehicles and stations near a location in Switzerland,' plus the radius/coordinate semantics. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling road_search_sharing, leaving the agent to guess which search tool applies in a given case.

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?

Usage is implied through the 'What sharing options are near me?' framing and the app analogy, which conveys the intent well. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as road_search_sharing or road_sharing_providers, so the agent must infer the split.

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