get_station

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate non-destructiveness. The description adds value by listing returned fields (title, status, version, domain, assigned printers), but it omits behavior such as error responses when stationId is invalid or whether partial data can be returned. With annotations already covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then lists what is returned. Every sentence adds value.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns, but could mention that the ID must correspond to an existing station and that it returns a single object. Still, it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, with stationId described as 'The station ID' and a minimum constraint. The description adds context that the ID is used to get station details, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 it gets details for a specific print station by ID, listing exactly what configuration fields are returned (title, status, version, domain, assigned printers). This verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stations (which lists many) and get_printer (which retrieves a different resource).

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 implies usage when you need details for a specific station by ID, which is standard for a get-by-ID tool. However, it provides no guidance on when to use alternatives like list_stations or get_printer, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the station needing to exist.

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