search_urban_station

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output nature (returns codes), the parameter semantics, and crucially specifies response guidelines: data freshness, empty-result, and prohibition on fabrication. These details go beyond schema and annotations, giving an agent clear expectations about result presentation.

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 long but well-structured: purpose first, then parameter explanations, then response guidelines. Each section serves a clear function and avoids redundancy. The front-loaded purpose and parameter details are immediately actionable; the response guidelines are consolidated and rule-based.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral response rules. It doesn't need to explain return values since output schema is present It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly, including data freshness handling and empty-result behavior.

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% and parameters have no descriptions so the description must compensate. It does: station_name is partial match with examples, operator is code or name partial match, and default behavior when station_name is empty is explained. This fully both parameters despite the schema gap.

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 and resource: searches operating organization, line, and station code by urban railway station name. Clearly labels it as a preliminary step for other queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_station and get_urban_station_info. The transfer-station clarification further disambiguates its role.

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?

Explains to use the tool: before other queries that require KRIC codes. It details to use parameters (partial match, optional operator narrowing) and why this step is necessary for transfer stations. Does not explicitly mention alternatives by name, the context clearly to this tool for code resolution.

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