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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only explains the data source ('from partner data') and that the output is names; it does not describe response shape, behavior for unknown cities, ordering, or completeness. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 short phrase with no wasted words and is easy to scan. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, and an explicit verb would improve clarity without adding length.

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 one-parameter tool the description is mostly adequate: it states the input city and the data returned. But with no output schema, the agent is left to guess whether the result is a plain list of strings or a richer structure that could feed sibling tools like city_departures.

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 single parameter 'city' has a complete schema description, including examples of Russian names and slugs. The tool description adds no additional meaning for this parameter, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 clearly indicates the tool returns names of bus stations and bus terminals in a city, which is specific enough to understand the resource and purpose. It does not use an explicit verb like 'возвращает' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as city_departures or search_routes. The context of needing station names is implied by the description, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative selection is provided.

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