list_stations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by listing the return fields (id, title, status, etc.) and indicating pagination support via schema parameters. However, it does not disclose potential performance implications, rate limits, or ordering behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all print stations') and efficiently lists key return fields. Every element earns its place; there is no verbosity or redundancy.

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 simple schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description is complete for a paged listing tool. It covers the resource scope and return attributes. A minor gap is the absence of mentioning that results are paginated by default (perPage default is 50, but described only in schema), but overall it is adequate for an agent to understand 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself fully documents the two parameters ('page' and 'perPage') with inline descriptions. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond referencing pagination implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb ('List all') and resource ('print stations configured in BizPrint'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_print_job or list_printers. It explicitly states the scope ('all print stations') and mentions key return fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the 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 implies the tool is for reading station configurations without modification, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. get_station (for a single station) or provide exclusions for specific scenarios. Clear context is provided but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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