Estación más cercana

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that it returns 'sus servicios' (its services), giving some indication of output richness. However, it doesn't disclose return format details, units, or error behaviors, though the output schema exists to cover some of this.

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 one concise sentence that packs purpose, scope, and output summary into minimal words. No wasted text; every element earns its place. Perfectly front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 only 2 parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, so the baseline requirements are modest. The description covers purpose and output (services) adequately. However, given the 0% parameter schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining coordinate format expectations, leaving a gap for a numeric input tool.

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%, meaning neither the schema properties nor the description explain what latitude/longitude should look like (degress, decimal format, bounds). The description says 'una coordenada' (a coordinate) which somewhat implies lat/lng pair usage, but doesn't compensate for the 0% coverage gap by explaining coordinate format expectations or constraints.

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 verb ('Encontrar' = find), the resource ('estación de metro o tren' = metro or train station), and the specific scope ('más cercana a una coordenada' = closest to a coordinate). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_stops_in_bbox and find_nearby_stops by specifying metro/train stations specifically, and it mentions returning services.

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 when a user needs the nearest metro or train station to a coordinate, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus the sibling tools. Given the sibling set includes find_nearby_stops (all stops) and get_routes_near_point, there's no explicit comparison to guide selection. However, the metro/train specificity provides some implicit differentiation context.

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