list_transit_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but it doesn't explicitly state safety, limitations, or required inputs. It only adds the minor behavioral detail that lines are included in the output.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is under-sized for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions. It leaves out essential usage context, making it not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with four unannotated parameters and no schema descriptions. It fails to explain how to set location, adjust radius/limit, or handle edge cases, hindering correct 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 coverage is 0% and descriptions are absent from parameters. The description only hints at location via 'nearby', but fails to explain lat/lon, limit, or radius_m semantics, defaults, or relationships.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('nearby transit stops and the lines that serve them'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like plan_route and find_nearby by specifying the transit context.

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 usage for transit queries via 'nearby', but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools. It lacks clear context differentiation from related siblings.

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