find_station

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: matching is by partial name and results include the lines that serve each station, which tells the agent what it gets back. It doesn't cover empty-result behavior or how fuzzy the matching is.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed by the return content and the disambiguating use case. No filler.

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 explains the return shape (matching stations plus serving lines). For a single-parameter lookup tool that's nearly sufficient; only match semantics and no-result behavior are missing.

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?

There is one parameter and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does indicate the query is a (partial) station name, which is genuinely useful, but leaves unclear whether matching is case-insensitive, prefix, or arbitrary substring.

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 ('Look up SEPTA Regional Rail stations') plus scope ('by (partial) name') and what it returns. The name and description together let an agent separate it from station_departures, train_schedule, and next_trains, which all operate on a known station rather than discovering one.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: use it when a station name is ambiguous or the user's intent is unclear. It does not explicitly name the alternative to call once the station is resolved (e.g. station_departures), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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