Find shared vehicles nearby

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has any side effects, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It only describes the result shape, leaving the safety and operational profile undisclosed.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the result fields are listed efficiently. Every word contributes to 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 description covers the essential purpose and result shape, but it lacks details on ordering, pagination, or behavior when no vehicles are found. Without an output schema, these gaps could matter, though the basic result fields are stated. It's adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'free-floating' and 'across all Norwegian operators', which clarifies the coordinate usage and the meaning of form_factors (type filter), but it does not add significant parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific resource ('free-floating shared vehicles'), a clear scope ('near a coordinate across all Norwegian operators'), and lists the fields returned. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like find_docking_stations (since it's free-floating, not docked) and find_stops_near (vehicles vs stops).

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 provides context that implies usage (find vehicles rather than stops or docking stations), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vehicle_positions or find_docking_stations. The 'free-floating' qualifier helps, but no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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