Pota Spots

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important nuance that results are a live, currently-changing feed, which usefully signals that repeated calls may return different spots despite idempotentHint. It does not mention freshness latency, caching, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with return-shape and optionality following in order of decision relevance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. With fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly; only cross-tool routing guidance is missing.

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%; each of band, mode, program, and location already has an example and an empty-string default documented. The description only contributes the general 'all filters optional' behavior, which the schema's defaults and zero required params already convey. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get current POTA activator spots') and the second sentence clarifies the payload ('live spot feed with park details, grid squares, and coordinates'). It implicitly separates itself from pota_scheduled by emphasizing 'current'/'live', but never names that or any other sibling explicitly.

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 line 'All filters are optional — omit to get all active spots' tells the agent how to call it with no arguments, which is genuinely useful. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over pota_scheduled (upcoming activations) or pota_park_activations (per-park history), leaving routing to inference.

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