road_sharing_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the return format (JSON with providers, vehicle types, app links) and geographic scope (Switzerland). 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, with two short sentences and a bullet for return value. The analogy 'Like checking the About page' is helpful but adds a bit of extra text. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters and existing annotations, the description covers the purpose and output. It mentions the return format and scope. Since output schema exists (context signals), the description is sufficiently complete for this simple listing tool.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides (which is empty).

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 it lists all shared mobility providers in Switzerland, using the verb 'List' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like road_find_sharing and road_search_sharing which are for searching or finding specific providers.

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 this tool is for a broad overview of providers, like an 'About' page. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings (e.g., for specific searches or status checks). The context signals make it clear, but explicit guidance would improve it.

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