search_stations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention case sensitivity, wildcard support, substring vs exact match, result limits, pagination, or error responses. The minimal description is insufficient for a tool that interacts with a data source.

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 short sentence, highly concise. However, it may be too brief given the need for behavioral transparency. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple single-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides the core functionality. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral traits limit completeness, especially with multiple sibling tools that have overlapping purposes.

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?

The only parameter 'name' has a schema description 'Station name to search'. The tool description adds value by specifying the acceptable languages (Japanese, Kana, English), which is not captured in the schema. This provides meaningful guidance 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 tool searches AMeDAS stations by name and specifies accepted languages (Japanese, Kana, or English). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_stations or search_nearby_stations.

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 such as list_stations, get_station_info, or search_nearby_stations. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.

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