find_route_stations

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

The description claims a read operation ('Find') while annotations set destructiveHint=true, suggesting data modification. This contradiction is not addressed. No additional behavioral context beyond the purpose is provided.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too brief given the contradiction and lack of usage guidance, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the output, does not resolve the annotation contradiction, and assumes the agent knows what 'route corridor' means. A more complete description would include output format and usage notes.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (corridor_km, fuel, geometry). The tool description does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find fuel stations along a route corridor' clearly states the verb and resource, and implies the corridor context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_nearest_stations' (point-based) and 'get_stations_in_area' (area-based), though not 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_nearest_stations or get_stations_in_area. Usage is implied by the description and the required geometry parameter (GeoJSON LineString), but no exclusion or prerequisite details.

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