search_stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a rate limit ('120 requests/minute'), which is a key behavioral constraint. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but for a read-only search tool, this is sufficient.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second provides a critical constraint. Every word earn its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not describe the return format. For a search tool, users would benefit from knowing the structure of results. However, given the simple query and 100% parameter coverage, the description is partially complete.

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 the schema itself documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond 'by code or name' which is already implied by the schema field 'Station name or code.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool 'Search bundled Indian Railways stations by code or name.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('stations'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on trains, schedules, and PNR status.

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 implies usage for finding stations by query, but does not mention when to use alternatives like get_station_coordinates, nor provides exclusions or prerequisites. It offers minimal guidance beyond the basic function.

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