get_route_stops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'Get all scheduled stops', implying a read-only action, and mentions the return includes place codes and station descriptions. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., no real-time updates, no pagination), authentication requirements, or what happens if no stops exist. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key output detail (place codes and station descriptions). Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns (stops with place codes and descriptions) and the necessary parameters are fully defined in the schema. The only missing piece is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but that is not critical for correctly calling this 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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents both route_id and direction_id, including examples and the source of direction_id. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without adding value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('scheduled stops for a route in a specific direction'), and even specifies the output content ('place codes and station descriptions'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_route_directions (which returns directions) and get_departures (which returns departure times), so an agent can easily tell what this tool does.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage by naming 'route' and 'direction', but the prerequisite that direction_id comes from get_route_directions is only mentioned in the schema, not the description. There is no guidance on when not to use it, so the usage context is only implied.

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