get-station-by-telecode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a lookup and lists sample output fields, but it does not describe the exact return structure, error behavior, or any constraints such as case sensitivity. This leaves moderate ambiguity for a tool without an output schema.

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 concise sentences, with the core behavior in the first sentence and usage context in the second. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter lookup, the description provides enough detail: what the input is, what kind of data is returned, and when to use it. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the sample fields, though the exact response shape is not specified.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its type and the '3位字母编码' format. The description only reinforces the stationTelecode concept without adding meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (查询), resource (车站 by station_telecode), and expected fields (名称、拼音、所属城市). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that query by name or city, since it is explicitly keyed by telecode.

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 clearly says this is for cases where the telecode is already known, and for special/debugging use, and notes it is seldom triggered in normal conversation flow. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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