search_stops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses partial/full name matching and the limit parameter, but does not mention case sensitivity, sorting, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple search this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: one purpose sentence followed by a clear Args block. Each line earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and parameters adequately, though it lacks explicit use-case guidance and edge-case notes.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: query as 'Partial or full stop name to search for' with examples, and limit as 'Maximum number of results to return.' This adds meaning well 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 opens with 'Search for public transport stops/stations by name,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. The resource (stops/stations) and scope (by name) clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_routes and get_next_departures.

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 implies its use for stop-name lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it offer any exclusions or prerequisites. It is functionally distinct from siblings, but the guidance is not explicit.

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