Recherche d'arrêt

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that no API key is required and that results are grouped by station, but it does not describe response format details, error behavior, or pagination. The description adds some behavioral value but leaves several operational details unstated.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and what it does not do. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The tool is simple, has only two parameters, and both are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the main use case, the alternative for addresses, and the nature of the returned data. It would benefit from a mention of the response shape or what happens when no stop is found, but it is complete enough for effective selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by emphasizing that the query can be approximate and providing concrete examples like 'hacquini' and 'denfert'. This helps the agent understand the intended fuzzy matching behavior of the query parameter.

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: searching for an Île-de-France stop by name, returning identifier, lines, and modes grouped by station. It also distinguishes itself from plan_journey by clarifying that postal addresses are not handled here. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiated.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when a stop name is unknown or when there is doubt. It also gives an exclusion case, postal addresses, and names the alternative tool, plan_journey, that should be used instead. This is strong routing guidance for an agent.

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