Find Stops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious domain trait — that stops are directional and the two sides of an intersection are separate stop numbers with different headsigns — which prevents a real class of errors, but says nothing about result volume, default limit behavior, or whether the search is fuzzy or exact.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the operation and inputs, the second delivers the directionality caveat. Front-loaded with zero padding.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the query/direction concepts are addressed, but for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the filtering parameters (mode, route, limit) remain undefined in every layer an agent can see.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description explains only `query` (accepted key types plus an alias example); `mode`, `limit`, `route` and `direction` are never mentioned, and the enum values '0'/'1' for direction are not connected to the headsign/directionality sentence.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('TTC stops, platforms or stations') plus the lookup keys (name, stop number, station name, alias). An agent can infer this is a text-search over stops rather than a proximity lookup, but the description never names nearest_stops or stop to make the boundary explicit.

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 alias example ('Dundas' resolves to TMU) gives a usable hint about input expectations and implicitly distinguishes this from geographic search via nearest_stops, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative across the 18 sibling tools.

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