Find docking stations nearby

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral outcome (returns station counts) but does not mention ordering, pagination, error conditions, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate but not exhaustive; it leaves some behavioral aspects to inference.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It states the return content (available vehicle and free-dock counts) and the geospatial scope. Without an output schema, it could mention ordering or result format, but these are minor omissions 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., count, range_m, lat/long). Since the schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, the description does not need to compensate, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('shared-mobility docking stations'), and a clear scope ('near a coordinate'), plus the key output ('available vehicle and free-dock counts'). This unambiguously differentiates it from siblings like find_shared_vehicles or get_vehicle_positions, which target vehicles rather than stations.

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 gives clear context: it is for finding docking stations (e.g., city bike stations) near a given coordinate with per-station counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (like 'use find_shared_vehicles for free-floating vehicles'), but the intent is obvious enough that an agent can select it correctly. Lacks explicit when-not guidance, so not a 5.

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