Station

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral content — open/closed status, service level per line with the closure, and all disruptions touching the station — but says nothing about how `query` is matched (exact id vs fuzzy name/alias), whether multiple matches can occur, or what happens on a miss.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and accepted keys before the parenthetical detail. It is dense and parenthesis-heavy but every clause carries content; nothing is filler.

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 long enumeration of returned fields is largely redundant, while genuinely missing information (station-vs-stop disambiguation, query matching semantics, not-found behavior) goes unaddressed. Complete enough to attempt a call, but not complete enough to call confidently.

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% — `query` is a bare string with no description — so the description must compensate. 'By id, name or alias' does add real meaning over the schema, but it gives no id format, no example, and no indication of whether ambiguity is tolerated, leaving the most-used parameter still underspecified.

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 names the resource (subway or LRT station), the accepted lookup keys (id, name or alias), and enumerates the payload (rail platforms, surface stops, entrances, accessibility, service per line, disruptions). That is a specific and distinguishable purpose, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling `stop` tool, which sounds near-identical to an agent scanning the tool list.

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 only implied: the phrase 'by id, name or alias' signals a point lookup when you already have an identifier. There is no statement of when to prefer `find_stops` or `nearest_stops` for discovery, or `stop` for single surface stops, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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