Find Locations

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world lookup. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results are location identifiers plus types, city IDs cover all stations, and station IDs matter for route detail and seat operations. It does not cover pagination or result limits, but the core downstream behavior is well disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded, and structured around one main action followed by a practical usage rule. Every sentence contributes either purpose, integration guidance, or ID-type selection advice.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides enough context for an agent to call this lookup and use its results correctly. Minor gaps around limit behavior and language handling are acceptable because those are largely covered by the input schema.

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 75%, with query, lang, and station_type documented while limit is not described in the schema. The description reinforces name-based lookup and the city/station distinction, but it does not add much parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: find RegioJet cities and stations by name. It clearly distinguishes this lookup tool from route-search and ticket siblings by identifying its role as the source of from/to location IDs.

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?

It explicitly says to use the returned id and type as from/to in search_routes, and gives a concrete decision rule: prefer CITY ids for searching, STATION ids for route detail/seats. This tells the agent when to choose each location type and how the result feeds a specific sibling tool.

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