Search railway stations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, response format, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal disclosure beyond the obvious read nature.

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, zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by a key usage directive. Every word contributes.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage. It also implicitly promises that results include codes, which is essential for downstream tools. Minor gaps (e.g., no note on pagination or response shape) are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'by name or code,' which aligns with the schema's query description but does not add significant new meaning.

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 and resource: 'Find Indian Railways stations by name or code.' It further differentiates from sibling tools by noting that most other tools require codes, making it clear this is the lookup/conversion tool.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use this first when the user names a city rather than a station code, since most other tools need codes.' It gives a clear when-to-use condition and implies the alternative (other tools need codes), though it does not name specific siblings.

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