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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only lookup/conversion returning IDs and implies possible multiple results via the plural 'IDs' and max_results schema. It does not describe matching semantics, failure behavior, or response structure, so transparency is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the operation and output, and the second explains downstream integration. It is front-loaded and compact.

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 simple 2-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description explains the input domain and the returned concept (Stop Place IDs) and lists the consuming tool families. Adding matching behavior or result format details would improve it, but an agent has enough to invoke 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 the schema already documents query and max_results. The description reinforces that the input is a place or address text value but adds no independent parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Turn a place or address into Entur Stop Place IDs'), names the resource domain (public transport stops/stations), and clarifies that the output is to be consumed by downstream transit tools. This clearly distinguishes it from address, docking-station, and place-name sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a free-text place or address must be converted into a Stop Place ID for departure, trip, accessibility, quay, or fare-zone operations. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like find_stops_near or search_place_names, so it lacks 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.