get-station-code-by-names

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it does state a read-style query behavior and the returned fields. It does not disclose not-found behavior, ordering, or exact-match caveats beyond the word '具体'.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the query purpose, with no redundant phrases. It is appropriately terse while still conveying the core operation.

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 single-parameter lookup, the tool description plus the schema describes the core call correctly. It lacks an explicit return-shape and empty-result description, but the named output fields and low complexity make it mostly complete.

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%, and the parameter description already provides examples and the '|' separator format. The tool description only repeats the 'specific Chinese station names' concept and adds no new parameter semantics.

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 verb 查询 and resource (station_code and station name) are specific, and the qualifier '具体的中文车站名' makes it clear this is an exact-name lookup. It is distinguishable from telecode/city siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when the caller has exact Chinese station names. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get-station-by-telecode or city-based station-code tools, and it gives no exclusions.

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