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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully clarifies that source_reference is an integration-assigned value and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about whether the search returns one or many stops, what happens on a miss, or what the include_* flags change.

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 compact sentences with the lookup predicate front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted and the key differentiator appears first.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the definition is too thin: result cardinality, miss behavior and the three include_* toggles are all unaddressed, so an agent cannot confidently predict the call's outcome.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gives helpful meaning for source_reference, but include_items, include_lines and include_tracking_link are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess at their cost/effect.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (stops) plus the discriminating lookup key — the source reference stored by the integration — and adds the backing endpoint GET /stops/search. That clearly separates it from locate2u_get_stop (id lookup) and the list_* stop tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it holds a source reference rather than a stop id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to locate2u_get_stop or locate2u_list_scheduled_stops as alternatives.

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