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

Although annotations only include openWorldHint, the description discloses key behavioral constraints: requires a single clear administrative region name, does not answer statistical queries, and counts one data unit per region×POI type. It does not contradict the annotation and provides practical limitations beyond a simple read operation, though it does not detail return format or pagination.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and scope, second covers exclusions, third provides typical queries, and pricing is clearly appended. No redundant sentences; every part earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it doesn't do, usage examples, and pricing model. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but the presence of an output schema obviates that need. Overall adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the four parameters, each with meaningful explanations (e.g., gov_name is single region, poi_type for disambiguation, input_text describes intent). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool queries automotive-related POI details for a specific administrative region, listing covered categories (gas stations, charging stations, 4S shops, car repair/wash, motorcycle services). It distinguishes from sibling POI tools by specifying the automotive scope, so purpose is explicit and distinct.

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 explicitly says not to use this tool for statistical counts like number of gas stations, directing to a different metric. It also states that multiple regions are not supported and gives typical query examples, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, though the exclusion guidance is valuable.

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