Paraderos en bounding box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it's a bounding-box query but doesn't disclose behavioral specifics like whether results are sorted, paginated, capped at a limit, or whether longitude/latitude order is enforced. With solid annotations covering safety, 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—a single clause. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, brevity comes at the cost of omitted helpful detail (parameter semantics, usage guidance), so while there's no waste, it may be under-specified.

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 an output schema present and safe read-only annotations, which reduces burden. With 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no behavioral detail, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in parameter guidance and return behavior. Given the output schema fills some context, completeness is passable but not strong.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. The description mentions 'min/max lat/lon' which loosely maps to the four parameters, but doesn't clarify valid ranges, ordering constraints, validation rules, or the relationship between min/max pairs. Given 0% coverage, the description should compensate substantially and doesn't.

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 finds stops within a bounding box using min/max lat/lon coordinates. It distinguishes itself from spatial alternatives like find_nearby_stops (point-based) and find_closest_station. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for differentiation, and 'Paraderos' is a Spanish term that may not be universally understood.

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 mention of 'bounding box (min/max lat/lon)' implies this is for rectangular geographic area queries, which implicitly contrasts with point-based tools like find_nearby_stops and find_closest_station. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, no stated exclusions, and no mention of coordinate format or ordering requirements.

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