road_surface_composition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose details such as how the radius is interpreted, what constitutes a 'surface type', or any edge cases (e.g., empty results). The presence of an output schema covers return structure, but not behavioral nuances.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and direct, covering the core purpose without wasting words.

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 tool's simplicity (3 obvious parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the one-line description provides adequate context. It clearly states the operation and output nature. The main gap is the lack of parameter explanation, but the names and schema types help compensate. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward query tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only references 'within a radius', giving some context for radius_m, but it does not explain lat/lng format or units. The names are self-descriptive (lat, lng, radius_m), but the lack of any explicit parameter guidance in the description leaves a gap for agents needing precise input semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('percentage breakdown of road surface types') with a defined scope ('within a radius'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like road_count_by_class or building_class_composition by focusing on surface types and percentage composition.

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 usage by specifying 'within a radius' and the concept of composition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The sibling list suggests related tools, but no direct comparison or guidance is provided.

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