swiss_transport_station_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether results are sorted by relevance vs distance, what happens with empty results, whether coordinate mode returns nearest station and how many, or whether 'name' matching is fuzzy/partial. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Single concise sentence that efficiently states purpose and scope. Could add a usage hint about mode selection, but for its length it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't clarify return structure (does it return station codes, names, coordinates?), the meaning of 'nearby', limits, or how it relates to the stationboard/connections siblings. Schema covers 75% of params but the operational semantics remain underspecified.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema documents query, lat, and lon but not limit. The description adds the two-mode distinction (name vs coordinates) which goes slightly beyond the schema, but doesn't explain the limit default behavior or clarify the interaction between query and coordinates. Description adds marginal value over schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Search for Swiss public transport stations') with two modes (by name or coordinates), distinguishing it from the sibling stationboard and connections tools. However, it doesn't explicitly note its distinction from sibling swiss_geo_search_location or clarify search scope beyond 'Swiss'.

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 two usage modes (name query vs lat/lon coordinates) and the schema reinforces this with separate fields. However, it doesn't state when to prefer this over swiss_geo_search_location or swiss_transport_stationboard, nor clarify whether query and coordinates are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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