TomTom POI Categories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the output is textual category codes, and the tool is the authoritative source of valid codes. It stops short of describing response shape or any rate-limit/auth considerations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and code-format constraint before the workflow, and every sentence carries actionable information. Slightly long, but the emphasis on code format and unreliability of guesses is justified for a lookup tool feeding downstream parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what comes back (category codes), how to feed them into the search tools, and what happens when filters is omitted. A brief note on the response structure (e.g., whether category names accompany codes) would make it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the filters parameter is already well documented, including the 'omit to return all categories' behavior. The description still adds value by explaining how to derive filters from natural-language intent with a concrete example, going beyond the schema's keyword-matching note.

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 ('look up') and resource ('POI category codes') and explains that the codes are UPPER_SNAKE_CASE strings rather than numeric IDs. It clearly distinguishes itself from the search siblings by positioning itself as the source of the poiCategories values they consume.

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?

Provides an explicit numbered workflow (extract keywords → call this tool → pass codes to search tools) and names the concrete alternatives that consume the output (fuzzy-search, poi-search, nearby, area-search). It also states the negative case: guessed or hardcoded codes are unreliable.

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