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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by scoping the operator (Tbilisi Transport Company), the stop taxonomy, and the bilingual Georgian/English matching behavior, which an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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, each earning its place: the first defines what is searched and how, the second tells the agent what to do with the result. Scope is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 tool is a simple read-only search with a full input schema and an output schema, so return-value detail is unnecessary. The description covers scope, matching inputs, and downstream usage, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so kind, limit, query and language are all documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description only echoes the query semantics ('by name or stop code, in Georgian or English') and does not add matching behavior such as substring vs prefix search, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (finds stops of the Tbilisi Transport Company), enumerates the covered stop kinds (bus, metro, cable car), and states the lookup keys (name or stop code, Georgian or English). This distinguishes it clearly from transit_list_nearby_stops, which is a proximity lookup rather than a text search.

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 second sentence gives concrete downstream guidance: take the returned stop id into transit_list_arrivals or transit_get_timetable, which is exactly the chaining an agent needs. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., 'use transit_list_nearby_stops instead when you only have coordinates'), so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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