road_count_by_class

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, return format, or edge cases (e.g., roads crossing the radius boundary). It simply states the counting action without detailing semantics, leaving the agent to infer safety and output behavior.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose, but its brevity comes at the cost of parameter clarity.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema available, so return-value details are unnecessary. However, the description leaves key details like radius units unspecified, and the lack of annotations means the agent has limited operational context.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for all three parameters, and the description does little to compensate. It implies that lat/lng define a point and radius_m defines the radius, but it does not specify units (e.g., meters) or coordinate format, which is insufficient for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Count' and identifies a concrete resource 'road segments by class' with a clear scope 'within a radius of a point'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling count tools like building_count_in_radius and count_places_by_type_in_radius.

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 a use case (querying road class counts near a location) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any alternative tools, exclusions, or prerequisites, so usage is only implicit.

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