Haltestellen suchen

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully enumerates the response fields (name, stop ID, locality, type, coordinates) and shows the stop ID format, but says nothing about read-only semantics, result cap/default behavior, or how ambiguous name matches are ranked.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: scope and method first, return payload second, intended use third. Everything an agent needs is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and example ID format. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the missing pieces (pagination/ambiguity handling) are minor for a small-limit lookup tool.

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% and both parameters are already documented there with examples ("Kröpcke", limit default 8/max 25). The description's "by name" adds nothing beyond the schema's query description, 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?

Specific verb (search) + resource (stops/stations) + geographic scope (Hannover, GVH/ÜSTRA), plus the explicit end goal of obtaining a stop ID, which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools that consume such IDs (departures, journey_planner).

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?

"Use it to find the exact stop ID" tells the agent this is the discovery/prerequisite step before calling departures or journey_planner, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming those siblings or stating when-not to use it, so no 5.

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