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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates this is a read-only lookup of nearby stations with availability counts, but it does not mention how results are ordered, whether the API has any rate limits or freshness caveats, or what the full response shape is beyond the counts.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes a clarifying example, and ends with the most important result detail. There is no redundant 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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description names the crucial return elements (vehicle counts and free-dock counts) and the schema fully documents the required and optional parameters. This is enough for an agent to invoke the tool successfully and interpret the main outcome, though a richer response-shape description would make it more complete.

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 schema covers all four parameters with descriptions and bounds, and the description does not need to repeat them. It adds only the high-level 'near a coordinate' context, which is already implied by the schema. This matches the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), a precise resource ('shared-mobility docking stations'), a locational anchor ('near a coordinate'), and names the key output fields ('available vehicle and free-dock counts'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as find_shared_vehicles and find_stops_near.

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 intended use is reasonably implied: find station-based shared mobility around a coordinate. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over find_shared_vehicles or other nearby-location tools, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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