Get Station Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — the ODPT source and that specifying language forcibly overrides response language — but does not describe what 'basic info' actually contains or how lookup failure behaves.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally sketch what station information is returned (codes, lines, operator), but it stays at '基本情報'. Parameters and safety are covered elsewhere, so it is minimally adequate but leaves the return shape undefined.

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%, so all three parameters (including the language and operator enums) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the language-forcing behavior already present in the schema, so it adds little beyond baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('駅情報取得' / get station info) and names the data source (ODPT API), so an agent understands it resolves basic station data. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_operator_routes or get_timetable, so a 4 rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_operator_routes, get_timetable, or list_transit_operators. The description implies it fetches station info but gives no exclusions or routing cues.

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