road_search_sharing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it performs full-text search and returns JSON with locations and availability, but does not discuss rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral details.

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 with no wasted words: a clear purpose statement, scope, use case, example, and return format. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, when to use, return format. It lacks parameter documentation but the schema fills that gap. Some missing details like pagination, but overall adequate.

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 covers the search_text parameter implicitly by mentioning 'by name or address' and giving an example, but it does not detail limit or provider_id. The schema provides good descriptions for all parameters, compensating somewhat. Given 0% schema coverage according to context, the description should do more, but it partially meets the need.

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 searches for shared mobility stations by name or address, with a specific scope (Swiss stations). It distinguishes from siblings like road_find_sharing by focusing on name/address search rather than coordinates.

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 explicitly says it's useful when the station name is known but not the coordinates, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios.

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