stop_list_fbl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. However, the description adds only 'Python SDK parity' and provides no behavioral context such as return format, pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'fbl'. The transparency bar is lower with annotations, but the description contributes almost nothing.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint path. It wastes no words and is easy to scan. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices functional clarity, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the endpoint returns, but it does not. It also does not clarify the semantics of 'fbl' or how this stop list differs from others. For a presumably read-only list tool, the description is incomplete.

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 all three parameters (limit, dry_run, cursor_next) having descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, but the high coverage gives a baseline of 3.

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 provides only the HTTP method and endpoint path ('GET /api/v2/stop-list/fbl') without stating what the tool does. The name 'stop_list_fbl' hints at a list operation, but there is no explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and no explanation of the resource. It does not distinguish from sibling tools such as stop_list_failed or search_stop_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this is preferred over other stop-list tools. Sibling names suggest related functionality, but the description offers no differentiation.

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