get_operator_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool displays all routes and stations, implying a read-only operation, and gives example operator keys. But it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or any side effects, which is a moderate gap for a listing 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 a single, well-structured sentence with a leading label (事業者別路線一覧), a clear action, and concrete examples. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description must explain what is returned. It states 'all routes and stations' but does not specify the response structure, pagination, or how the language parameter affects output. It is adequate for basic understanding but misses critical details for a fully informed invocation.

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 50% with only operator_name having a minimal description ('事業者キー') and language having an enum. The description adds value by listing example operator key values, but it does not explain the language parameter's meaning or default, and does not fully compensate for the schema's sparse documentation.

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 displays all routes and stations for a specified operator, with a specific verb (表示) and resource (routes and stations). It includes concrete examples of operator keys, distinguishing it from siblings like list_transit_operators and search_route.

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 clear context: use this tool to list routes and stations by operator key, with examples of valid operator keys. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling context makes such exclusions implicit.

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