check_speeding

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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent query. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it evaluates the current situation and compares against the posted limit, rather than raw speed alone. Nothing in the description contradicts the 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key qualifiers (right now, posted limit) without redundancy. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it appropriately. The combination of annotations, output schema, and succinct description leaves no significant contextual gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of the parameter surface, so there is little parameter information to add. The description's mention of 'posted limit' gives helpful semantic framing even though no parameters exist.

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 identifies the tool's function: determining whether the subject is currently speeding and by how much over the posted limit. While phrased as a question rather than an imperative-style description, it is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_truck_state or get_raw_telemetry.

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 the tool should be used when the current speeding status relative to the posted limit is needed. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving comparison with sibling tools to inference.

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