get_station_location

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key behaviors: partial matching, default 'return all', data source date, and the inclusion of exit count. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error handling, but for a simple read-only query these are not critical and the given details are transparent.

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 informative without being overly redundant. It front-loads the purpose, then details parameters and defaults, and includes translations at the end which add length but not clutter. The structure is clear and each sentence serves a purpose, though the EN/JA translations are optional extras.

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?

The output schema exists, so return structures are handled outside the description. The description covers input semantics, default behavior, dataset scope (202 stations, date), and provided fields—sufficient for a straightforward lookup tool. It omits edge-case handling, but these are not essential for correct 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 0%, so the description must fully document parameters. It does: station_name is a partial match with examples, region is a partial match with examples, and empty inputs return all. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 retrieves station location information, listing specific fields (regional HQ, coordinates, exit count) and the data source (202 mainline stations as of 2024.04.01). This is a specific verb+resource and is distinct from sibling tools like get_station_facilities or search_station, which focus on other aspects.

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 explains how to use the parameters (partial matching for station_name and region, providing examples) and the default behavior (returns all when empty). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the usage context is clear and adequate for an agent to decide when this tool fits.

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