get_station_info

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 the payload contents (zone, transport modes) and is a read-only lookup by nature, but does not state whether it requires an exact station name, handles ambiguous inputs, 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 11-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and immediately followed by the returned fields. No 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?

For a 1-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and payload. It is nearly complete, though it could note whether the input is an exact name or fuzzy match.

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 100% and already includes examples. The description adds no syntax, format, or disambiguation details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Get information about a station') and specifies the payload ('zone and transport modes'). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_station or get_nearby_stations, though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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 implied — use to retrieve static details about a known station. No explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., search_station for name lookup, get_nearby_stations for proximity) are mentioned.

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