Paradas de un recorrido

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 the directional scoping (ida/vuelta) which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but doesn't disclose other behaviors like ordering guarantees, empty results for unknown routes, or error handling. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Single concise sentence that packs the essential information: what it returns (stop sequence for a route), the scoping (a single direction), and the direction code mapping. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Has an output schema and read-only annotations, so the tool doesn't need to explain return values or mutation risks. The description covers the core purpose and the direction semantics. However, it doesn't clarify behavior for invalid route_ids, whether direction=1 exists for all routes, or how to discover available routes, which an agent might need. Adequate but with gaps given the query-oriented context.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. The description clarifies route_id implicitly (identifies the recorrido) but its main contribution is explaining direction semantics with the '0=ida, 1=vuelta' mapping. However, no enums or validation are added for the direction values, and route_id format isn't explained. Baseline 3 is appropriate given zero schema coverage.

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 states the tool fetches the sequence of stops for a route in a given direction. The verb is implicit (get from name) but the resource (paradas/ruta) is clear. It distinguishes from get_route (route details) and get_route_shape (shape geometry), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 explains the direction parameter (0=ida, 1=vuelta) which clarifies a key usage aspect. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs siblings like get_route or search_stops, leaving the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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