get_stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get list of stations' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this returns all stations or a filtered subset, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just three words ('Get list of stations'), which is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero wasted words or redundant information.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a context with many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how it differs from related tools. For a retrieval tool in a rich API environment, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters (format, type, units) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional context about how parameters interact or typical usage patterns.

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 'Get list of stations' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('stations'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_station_details' or 'get_water_levels'. It doesn't specify what kind of stations (e.g., water level stations, current stations) or what information is included in the list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'get_station_details' for detailed information, 'get_water_levels' for water level data), there's no indication of when this list retrieval is appropriate versus when other tools should be used instead.

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