search_journey

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

With no annotations available, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It implies a read-only search operation but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or return format. A more thorough disclosure is expected for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core function. There is no wasted content, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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 (two required string parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits output details, error handling, and any context about the results, which might be needed for complete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing examples for 'from' and 'to' station codes. The description adds little beyond restating the schema ('between two TfL stations'), so it meets the baseline without adding extra meaning.

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 the action ('search for journey information') and the resources ('between two TfL stations'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'journey information' includes (e.g., routes, timings, fares), which could be improved.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description simply states the function without context for appropriate usage.

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