sbb_search_stations

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

The description does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It adds context about the data source and response content, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The annotations already indicate a safe read operation.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement, context, and separate sections for args and returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Although a few sentences could be trimmed, it is reasonably concise and easy to parse.

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 description covers the tool's scope (all Swiss stops), parameters, and return format (markdown or json). It mentions the output schema with fields. For a search tool with existing annotations and output schema, this is sufficiently complete. The only minor gap is lack of mention of pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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?

The input schema already has descriptions for each parameter (query, canton, limit, response_format). The tool description repeats these with examples and adds the response schema details (name, uic, canton, operator, coordinates). While this adds some value, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

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 that the tool searches for Swiss stations and stops, covering all public transport stops (not just SBB). It specifies the source (DiDok list) and the data included (UIC numbers, coordinates, cantons, operators). This is specific and distinguishes it from other tools.

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 usage context (covers all Swiss public transport stops) and parameter hints (query min 2 chars, optional canton, limit). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like sbb_compare_stations or sbb_get_platform_data. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned.

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