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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it reveals the data source, the per-quay granularity, and the explicit limitation that deeper equipment detail is unavailable. It stops short of describing response shape or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tightly written sentences earn their place: the first front-loads the operation and output scope, the second adds a valuable limitation without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 one required parameter is fully documented and the description states what the response will contain at a high level. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the exact response shape would be ideal, but nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly 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 input schema already gives 100% coverage for stop_place_id, including format, example, and a pointer to resolve_stop_place, so the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully carries this weight.

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: getting accessibility information for a stop place, with a concrete scope (per-quay wheelchair access plus a summary). It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling tool, so it falls just short of full differentiation, but the Entur and per-quay context makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 note explicitly states when not to use this tool (when elevators or tactile guidance are needed) and names the alternative (Entur's authenticated Stop Register API). The parameter description also directs the agent to resolve_stop_place to obtain the required ID, so invocation context is fully covered.

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