find_transport_stops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'finds' stops and returns an 'API response,' but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the response format entails. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter and return sections are structured clearly, with no redundant sentences. However, the 'Returns' line is vague ('API response with transport stops'), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides good parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output. It's adequate for basic use but incomplete for full agent understanding, especially without annotations to cover safety or performance traits.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the format for 'location_coord' (coordinates in 'LONGITUDE:LATITUDE:EPSG:4326'), enumerates possible values for 'stop_type' ('BUS_POINT', 'POI_POINT', 'GIS_POINT'), and clarifies 'radius' as 'Search radius in meters.' This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Find transport stops around a specific location.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('transport stops'), and the scope ('around a specific location'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_departure_monitor' or 'get_transport_alerts', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of sibling tools or contextual cues for selection. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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