Find stations and stops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: fuzzy matching, diacritics being optional, and the fields returned (modes, coordinates, source feeds), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing result ordering, limits, or what an empty match looks like.

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 no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical detail and return-field note are tightly packed into the second clause.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the action, matching semantics, and return fields. What is missing is limit/default behavior and routing to the sibling tools, but no output schema exists so return documentation need not be exhaustive.

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 coverage is 67%: query and modes are documented in the schema, while limit (1-50) has no description anywhere. The description adds real semantic value for query by specifying fuzzy matching and diacritics behavior, which the schema does not, so it slightly compensates but does not close the limit gap.

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 verb and resource ('Search stations/stops by name') and qualifies the matching semantics as fuzzy with optional diacritics. It implicitly contrasts with the proximity-based sibling nearby_stops by emphasizing name matching, but never names that alternative 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: the 'by name' qualifier suggests when this is appropriate versus nearby_stops, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the routing from the sibling list.

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