road_find_sharing

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior: no API key required, data source (sharedmobility.ch), returns grouped JSON with availability and booking links. No contradictions 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and using bullet points for the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 low complexity (1 parameter object with 6 fields, all described in schema) and presence of output schema, the description fully covers necessary context: purpose, geographic scope, data source, real-time nature, and return format.

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% (description doesn't repeat parameter details). However, the input schema already has thorough descriptions for each parameter (latitude, longitude, pickup_type, etc.). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the tool finds shared mobility vehicles and stations near a location in Switzerland, listing specific vehicle types (bikes, e-bikes, etc.) and comparing it to a mobility app. This distinguishes it from siblings like road_find_charger or road_search_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 clear context: use for checking nearby shared mobility options in Switzerland with real-time data. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention of alternatives like road_search_sharing for broader searches.

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