get_reachable_area

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It explains computation and return format (GeoJSON) but does not disclose side effects, authorization, rate limits, or idempotency. It is accurate but incomplete for a fully transparent description.

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?

Docstring style with Args/Returns sections is well-structured and concise. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. Efficient use of space.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema provided, description covers all input parameters and return format (GeoJSON). Lacks error handling or performance notes but is sufficient for a computation 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 description compensates well. It explains coordinates format ([lon, lat]), route_type enums, range_type units, and area_range meaning (seconds/metres, comma-separated lists). Adds significant value beyond schema types.

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?

Clearly states the tool computes reachable area within time/distance from starting points. Verb 'computes' and resource 'reachable area' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling routing and search tools by focusing on isochrones.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like create_route_from_to or search_known_routes. The purpose is clear enough for inference, but lacks direct context or exclusions.

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