Search stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by detailing the return fields (name, EVA number, products, full bahn.de id) and the fact that the returned id is accepted by other tools. This gives the agent actionable integration knowledge, though it does not touch on limits, sorting, or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the precise usage condition, and the return-value interoperability detail. There is no redundant repetition of the title or schema, and the most important scoping rule is front-loaded immediately after the action statement.

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?

The tool has strong annotations, a 100% documented schema, and an output schema, so the definition does not need to re-explain structured data. The description adds the selection criterion and cross-tool compatibility context, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke 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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains both 'query' and 'include_stops' with examples. The description reinforces that the query is a name/fragment lookup and frames it as a disambiguation step, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Find Deutsche Bahn stations by name.' It clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings by explaining that the other tools accept plain station names directly, so this tool is specifically for ambiguous or rejected names. The purpose is immediately obvious and not a tautology.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this only when a name is ambiguous or another tool rejected it.' It also states the alternative clearly—'the other tools accept plain station names directly'—so an agent knows exactly when to avoid this tool. This is exemplary usage routing.

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