transit_stations_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds behavior beyond that by disclosing fuzzy matching and the acceptance of kanji/kana/romaji. This gives useful context without over-explaining, though it doesn't mention return format or edge cases.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose and input constraints efficiently, earning a top score.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, read-only and open-world annotations), the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does, what input it accepts, and what to expect in terms of behavior.

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 parameter q has full schema coverage with a baseline description ('Search query, at least 2 characters'). The tool description augments this by clarifying that the query supports kanji, kana, or romaji, which provides deeper meaning than the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fuzzy-search') and a well-defined resource ('Japanese train stations by name'), while also specifying accepted input formats (kanji, kana, or romaji). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like transit_station_status or transit_lines by focusing on the search capability.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever you need to find a Japanese train station by name with fuzzy matching. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that the intended usage is obvious.

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