Search stops

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

Annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: index lag means recently created stops may be missing, results are bounded by the team's data retention, and string range operators work on ISO-8601 dates only. No output format or pagination behavior is described, but the freshness caveat is real value beyond 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 opening clause front-loads what the tool does and the freshness caveat is a well-placed closing sentence. The long inline field enumeration is dense but each element is actionable; only minor tightening possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly does not attempt return values, and it supplies the two things an agent most needs to call it correctly: filter syntax and the indexing-lag caveat. Pagination is covered only by the schema's page_token description, so completeness is good but not total.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by documenting the filter grammar with concrete examples, enumerating filterable fields (planId, routeId, address.*, deliveryInfo.state, etc.), and stating the ISO-8601 constraint on comparison operators. It does not add much on sort, page_token, or max_results beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across all stops') and immediately scopes it ('assigned and unassigned', 'within the team's data retention'), which is exactly what separates it from the scoped siblings list_route_stops and list_plan_stops.

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?

Usage is implied by the broad 'all stops' scope and the two worked filter examples, but no alternative is named and there is no guidance on keyword vs. filter, or when a scoped list_* call would be preferable. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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