gbfs_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 behavioral burden. 'Fetch' and 'real-time' imply a safe read, and it names the returned fields, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or behavior when coordinates are omitted. Useful but incomplete for a tool with zero 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional proximity behavior second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition is largely complete for a simple read tool: purpose, payload contents, and the proximity option are covered. It could do slightly more (e.g., what the response looks like or defaults when coordinates are absent), but the schema handles the required details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, latitude, longitude, radius_meters, system_id_or_url) is already documented. The description's mention of 'sort and filter by geographic proximity' loosely maps to lat/long/radius but adds no format or interaction details beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch real-time station status') and enumerates the payload contents (available bikes, e-bikes, docks), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like gbfs_get_free_bikes or gbfs_get_system, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

Only hints at usage via 'Optionally sort and filter by geographic proximity.' There is no statement of when to prefer this over gbfs_get_free_bikes or gbfs_get_system, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer routing from the names alone.

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