find_station

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does state that results are ordered by 'best match first', which is useful, but it omits other behaviors like case sensitivity, handling of partial matches, or error conditions. For a simple lookup, this is minimal but not severely lacking.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and ordering behavior. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the core lookup behavior but does not mention result format, case sensitivity, or limit semantics. For a straightforward station lookup, it is minimally 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 only 50%: the query parameter has a description, but limit has none. The tool description reiterates that query accepts name or CRS code, adding little beyond the schema. It provides no clarification for the limit parameter, leaving it underspecified.

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 the tool looks up GB railway stations by name or CRS code and returns best match first. This specifies a verb, resource, and search criteria, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like live_departures or plan_journey, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for station lookup, but there is no explicit mention of when to prefer it over other tools or any exclusions.

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