la_metro_stops

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation. The description adds context about return fields (IDs, names, coordinates) and the optional filter, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior when no route is provided (e.g., returns all stops), pagination, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 reflects the added but limited transparency.

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 sentences, starts with the verb 'List', and contains no filler. Every word adds value: the resource, the system, the returned fields, and the optional filter.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the essential details: what it lists, what it returns, and the optional filter. It could clarify what happens without a route code, but the optional parameter implies all stops. This is adequate for the simplicity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter, including a description with an example ('720' for Wilshire Rapid). The tool description adds 'Optionally filter' indicating the parameter is optional, which aligns with the schema (not required). Since the schema already provides detailed semantics, the description adds little beyond the baseline.

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 the tool's function: 'List stops for an LA Metro (Los Angeles) route.' It specifies the resource (stops), the scope (LA Metro), and the output (stop IDs, names, coordinates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like la_metro_routes (which lists routes) and la_metro_vehicles (which lists vehicles).

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 provides clear context: use this to list stops for a route, optionally filtered by route code. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., 'use la_metro_routes to get route lists'). No exclusions are stated, but the purpose is specific enough to infer usage.

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