road_park_rail

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it states 'No API key required – completely open data!' (authentication), 'Cache TTL: 5 minutes' (freshness), and explicitly describes the output as 'JSON with nearby Park & Rail facilities sorted by distance, including total spaces and capacity by category.' This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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 adequately structured with the main purpose front-loaded, but it includes some extraneous elements like 'Phase 3 tool' and the French quote. While not overly verbose, it could be more concise by removing marketing language and focusing on essential operational details.

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 covers the return format and data source, but it omits crucial input details such as the required latitude/longitude parameters and optional radius/limit. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema), the description is incomplete for a user unfamiliar with the API.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% per context, the tool description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. It only implies location ('near Swiss train stations') without mentioning latitude/longitude, limit, or radius_km. Users are left to infer from the tool's purpose, which is insufficient for a parameter-dependent search tool.

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's purpose: 'Find Park & Rail parking facilities near Swiss train stations.' It specifies the resource (Park & Rail facilities), the action (find), and the scope (near Swiss train stations, SBB-operated). This distinguishes it from siblings like road_find_sharing or road_find_charger, which serve different mobility needs.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'near Swiss train stations' and 'the link between road and rail,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling comparisons or 'use when' guidance is given, limiting the score to adequate but not great.

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