Haltestellen suchen

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the match is fuzzy and the result includes coordinates/references. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior, which leaves meaningful gaps for a network-backed lookup.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the purpose and return contents front-loaded and parameter notes following. Nothing is padded, though the parameter sentence could be split for readability.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the semantics of every parameter. Only the unspecified 'type' values and the absence of downstream-usage hints keep it from being fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it covers all three: query as name-or-place with fuzzy matching, type as a TRIAS place-type filter, and maxResults as a result cap. It does not enumerate the allowed 'type' values, which is the one remaining gap.

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 (searches stops) and enumerates the return fields (stopPointRef, names, places, coordinates), so an agent can tell it apart from departures/journey/timetable. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The only implicit signal is that 'query' is a name or place, but nothing tells the agent whether to reach for this before departures or timetable.

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