search_bus_stops

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: matching must be exact (no partial-name search will work) and the result surface is platform IDs. It says nothing about behavior on zero matches or pagination semantics, so it earns credit but not high marks.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation, its scope, and its output with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and safety semantics are covered by annotations. For a simple 3-parameter lookup the definition is nearly sufficient; the remaining gap is that it does not address result pagination or empty-result behavior, which matters for a search 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does this well for the required 'name' parameter by revealing exact-match and Japanese-script requirements, which the bare string schema does not convey. It says nothing about limit or offset despite their presence, leaving pagination behavior entirely to inference from defaults.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find Toei bus stops') plus the returned artifact ('platform IDs'), which distinguishes it from siblings such as get_bus_route and get_bus_stop_timetable that deal with routes and schedules rather than stop identity. The 'exact Japanese name' qualifier further narrows the operation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it is not a 5.

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?

'By exact Japanese name' implies the usage condition (you must already know the stop's exact name; no fuzzy or partial matching), which is real implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to use for name-fuzzy lookups, route-based lookup, or timetable retrieval.

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