list_stations

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 adds genuinely useful behavior (case-insensitive substring matching for both filters, and the overall network scale). However, it does not disclose the return format (fields per station) or any pagination behavior, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 action and resource front-loaded. The filter and scale information is packed efficiently into the second sentence, and every clause earns its place.

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 3-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, filter behavior, scale, and the limit default. The return format is the only notable gap since no output schema exists, but for a straightforward listing operation the description is otherwise sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% — all three parameters (city, limit, voivodeship) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the case-insensitive substring nuance beyond the schema's bare 'Filter by city (substring)', which is a small but real semantic contribution, though not substantial enough to exceed the baseline.

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 (List), a distinct resource (GIOŚ air-quality monitoring stations), and the optional filters. The resource clearly differentiates it from sibling tools (get_station_sensors, get_sensor_readings, get_air_index) which target sensors, readings, and indices rather than the station list itself.

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 gives useful operational context — the network is ~200 stations, so use filters or `limit` to keep responses small — which signals when to constrain the query. However, it never addresses when to choose this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'use get_station_sensors for a station's sensors'), offering no exclusions or alternative routing.

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