zurich_pedestrian_traffic

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: data source (hystreet.com sensors), locations (Nord, Mitte, Süd), included fields (direction, weather), and ordering (neueste zuerst). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise German sentences plus a 'Returns:' line. Front-loaded with the main purpose, no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple schema (one parameter, read-only), the description adequately covers what the tool does, the data source, and output characteristics. It lacks details on authentication or real-time nature, but the existing output schema likely covers return structure. Reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only parameter (limit) has a schema description ('Anzahl Stundenwerte (max. 168)'), so the description doesn't add significant meaning. The context mentions 0% schema description coverage, but the limit parameter itself is described. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's effect.

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 provides hourly pedestrian frequencies at Zurich's Bahnhofstrasse, specifying the data source (hystreet.com sensors at three locations) and including direction and weather. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zurich_air_quality or zurich_parking_live by focusing on pedestrian traffic.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for pedestrian traffic data, but doesn't mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling tools, it's clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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