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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered by dial position, the listener count is only present 'when known' (signaling a nullable field), and a link is included that tunes in live. Return format is described without requiring an output schema.

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, zero filler. The ordering and returned-field list come first, followed by the 'start here' routing hint, so the most useful information is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-argument read tool with no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so field by field, including the conditional listener count. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and interpret the result is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The description correctly implies the call needs no arguments and focuses instead on what comes back.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('Static's stations') and enumerates the returned fields: id, name, one-line description, live listener count, and a tune-in link. It also frames the tool as the entry point for locating a station by name or id, which distinguishes it from the detail- and schedule-oriented siblings.

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?

'Start here to find a station's name or id' gives clear positive guidance on when to reach for this tool, effectively routing the agent to it before the other station tools. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when to skip it in favor of find_on_now or show_details, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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