check_road_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: live closures are always included regardless of horizon_days, closures come first in the ordering, and the attribution line must be shown. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but with no output schema and read-only semantics, the added context is strong.

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 dense but well-organized: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage examples, exclusions, and constraints. Every sentence earns its place. It is longer than the HIGH calibration example, but the tool has 7 parameters and multiple sibling distinctions to cover, so the length is justified. A small deduction for the slightly run-on structure of the first sentence.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the key operational details: when to use it, when not to, parameter semantics, constraints, and the attribution requirement. It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but with no output schema and read-only annotations, that is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between road and the planned-works data ('it is the only input that reaches the planned-works data'), giving concrete horizon_days mappings (0 for right now, 1 for tonight, 3 for weekend, 7 for next week), and clarifying that a bare question should omit the argument rather than read it as 0. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns whether... open, closed or restricted') and a specific resource (one German motorway or federal road), with concrete example queries. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is not for, so an agent can tell it apart from check_autobahn_traffic and find_roadworks_ahead without opening their schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example phrasings, and explicit when-not-to-use guidance naming the alternative tools ('Do NOT use for jams and delays... call check_autobahn_traffic; for roadworks over a date window — find_roadworks_ahead'). It also states constraints like one road per call, ≤14 days, ≤11 entries, and the attribution line requirement. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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