Get route stops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: 'optional direction' merely restates the schema's own 'if supported' note, and there is no mention of return format, empty-result behavior, or feed selection.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that puts the resource first. The only waste is the 'using getstops' clause, which is redundant internal jargon.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate, but the undocumented 'rtpidatafeed' parameter and the absence of any guidance on direction resolution or result shape leave clear gaps for an agent.

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 67%, so most parameters are self-documented. The description names route and direction but says nothing about 'rtpidatafeed', the one parameter lacking a schema description, so it only partially compensates for the gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('stops for a route'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_routes, get_directions, and get_vehicles. The trailing 'using getstops' is a redundant API-method reference that adds no distinguishing value but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention that direction values may need to be resolved via prt_get_directions first. Usage is only implied by the resource name, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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