search_stops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states it searches stops by name but omits whether it is read-only, whether results are paginated, how matching works (exact vs. partial), or any authentication or rate-limit details.

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 two lines and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter breakdown and examples. Every part earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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's low complexity, a single required parameter, and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the definition is nearly complete. It still lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and behavioral details like match semantics, but these are minor gaps for a simple search.

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?

The schema provides no parameter description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'name' is the stop name to search for and giving realistic examples ('Viru', 'Balti jaam', 'Tartu'), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare string type.

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 clearly states a specific verb (Search) and resource (Estonian public transport stops) with the scope 'by name'. It distinguishes from location-based siblings like nearby_stops implicitly, but does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as nearby_stops or how to choose between them. The only implicit cue is 'by name', which is not enough to count as usage guidance.

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