Accessibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses how alerts are joined to pathway nodes, that unmatched codes are reported with `node_match false`, that uncoded node counts are included, that upcoming outages are listed separately and do not affect units or the verdict, and that platform/entrance queries answer for their station via `queried_platform` or `queried_entrance`.

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 dense and front-loads the core purpose before detailing return semantics. It is longer than typical, but nearly every clause carries useful behavioral or parameter context, with only mild run-on density that could be improved with clearer separation.

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?

Given a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the query accepts and what kinds of accessibility information are returned. It does not cover error handling or explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the single `query` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that the query accepts a station id, name, or alias, or a stop, and that platform or entrance ids are also valid and answered at station level. It could still be stronger with format examples, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the resource as station/stop accessibility data and enumerates the specific contents: wheelchair flags, station summary, elevator/escalator units, node matching, and step-free verdict. It is more specific than the generic `station` or `stop` siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call this when accessibility details are needed for a station or stop. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no direct comparison to sibling tools such as `station`, `stop`, or `alerts`.

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