Route Stops

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the result shape and the meaning of the status values (open, closed due to station closure, skipped_by_detour), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for unknown routes, or why branches are grouped separately.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are enumerated efficiently. It is slightly over-packed into one sentence, which makes the scoping and the output catalog harder to scan separately.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't re-describe returns, yet it spends its words there while leaving the two required parameters and the optional pattern parameter undocumented. For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, that leaves the caller guessing on direction encoding.

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%, so the description must compensate and it largely doesn't: it never explains the format of 'route', never states what direction value '0' versus '1' means, and never mentions the optional 'pattern' parameter at all despite pattern grouping being central to the output.

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 clearly what is returned: ordered stops for a given route and direction, grouped by stop pattern, with trip counts, headsigns, typical minutes, and per-stop status. This distinguishes it implicitly from find_stops/nearest_stops (name-based or proximity lookup) by its route+direction scoping, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts the scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus find_stops, nearest_stops, stop, or route_shape, nor on prerequisites such as needing a valid route identifier. The agent must infer the use case purely from the returned-field list.

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