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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the data source (ATP GTFS feed) but doesn't explain query behavior, result format, scope (real-time vs. static), or any side effects. Basic transparency is missing.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking structure. It conveys the core function without additional details like parameter info or examples. While not verbose, it could be more informative without increasing length significantly.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides minimal but adequate context to understand what the tool does. However, it lacks completeness about output, parameter behavior, and integration with sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description doesn't explain parameter meanings. While 'query' and 'limit' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not add any value beyond the schema. For a tool with required parameters, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool searches for nationwide public-transport stops from the ATP GTFS feed, with a specific verb 'search' and resource 'public-transport stops'. It distinguishes from siblings which are mostly 'get_' tools for specific data, not searches.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context about when to prefer this over similar search tools like geocode_address or search_datasets.

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