road_mobility_snapshot

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: parallel aggregation of data sources, optional traffic data based on API key configuration, and the fact that no extra key is needed beyond Phase 2. This clarifies the tool's behavior beyond 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 description is structured with a clear lead sentence, bullet-like list of aggregated items, usage context, data sources, and return format. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No redundant information.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, data sources, key requirements, optional features, and return shape (JSON fields). Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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%. While the schema has German descriptions, the tool description does not explain parameter meanings in English. It mentions radius for EV and sharing in the narrative but omits park_rail_radius and does not clarify that latitude/longitude are required. The description adds little value for understanding parameters.

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 aggregates multiple mobility data sources into one call, using specific verbs like 'Get a complete mobility picture' and listing all data types. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings: 'Instead of calling 5 different tools, get everything at once.'

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 recommends the tool for demos and comprehensive mobility queries. It implies use when a broad overview is needed, but does not explicitly exclude cases like single-source queries. The sibling tool names provide implicit alternatives, but the description could benefit from direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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