decode_station_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behaviors: simultaneous search of two systems and partial matching capability. However, it does not mention output formatting or error behavior (e.g., what happens if code not found). Given the output schema exists, some return details are covered, but not all edge cases.

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?

Description is compact, front-loaded with main purpose, then adds usage context, scope (two systems), and examples. No wasted words. Each sentence contributes essential 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context, systems searched, and matching behavior. It could mention what happens on invalid codes or whether results are singular/multiple, but the output schema likely handles return value definition. Overall, a very complete description for its complexity.

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 has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must fully clarify the parameter. It does so: defines 'code' as a station code (numeric), gives concrete examples with full and partial codes, and explains partial matching. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: lookup station name by reverse numeric code. It also specifies the use case (when a code appears from another MCP response) and distinguishes from the freight-code sibling by naming station codes specifically. Example formats reinforce the purpose.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'use when a code appears from another MCP response'. It also notes both systems are searched and that partial matching is supported. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., search_station) or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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