mbta_get_nearby_stops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic function, omitting details about sorting by distance, handling of no results, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise (6 words) but lacks structure and additional useful details. While not verbose, it does not enrich the agent's understanding beyond the name and parameter names. It could include information about result sorting or default parameters to earn 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that results are sorted by distance, that radius defaults to 1000m, or how to interpret the output. The agent would benefit from contextual hints about when to use this over similar tools like mbta_search_stops.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for latitude, longitude, radius, and page_limit. The tool description adds no new information beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 'Get stops near a specific location' clearly states the action (get) and resource (stops) with a specific criterion (near a location). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mbta_search_stops (likely name-based) and mbta_get_stops (likely ID-based). However, it could be more explicit about the geographic proximity aspect.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like mbta_search_stops or mbta_get_stops. The agent receives no context on appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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