find_station

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns one or more canonical station records and can disambiguate, which adds value beyond an obvious search. However, it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, result limits, or error handling, though the presence of an output schema covers return expectations. Overall, the description gives sufficient behavioral context for a non-destructive search tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concise usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% and the parameter description already covers name fragments and language support. The tool description adds the concepts of partial matching and disambiguation, but these are largely implied by the schema's 'fragment' wording. Thus the description offers marginal additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and resource (Swiss public transport stations) with a scope qualifier (by name or partial name). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its role as a resolver before get_connections or get_stationboard and its disambiguation capability for similar station names.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: resolve place names before calling specific sibling tools (get_connections or get_stationboard) and disambiguate similar names. This gives clear context and names alternatives, meeting the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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