sbb_search_stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the data source (DiDok list), coverage of all stops, parameters like minimum query length, and the return schema. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary. The docstring-style Args section is informative without waste, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, parameters, and output.

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 moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description fully covers the input parameters, return type, and content of the results. It provides enough detail for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 0% for the top-level 'params' parameter, but the description thoroughly documents all sub-parameters (query, canton, limit, response_format) with examples and meaning. It also explains the return format and fields, adding value beyond the schema's limited 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 searches Swiss train stations and stops using the official DiDok list, with a specific verb (Sucht) and resource. It also distinguishes itself by covering all public transport stops, not just SBB, which differentiates it from sibling 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 clear context about what this tool does and its scope (all Swiss stops, includes UIC numbers, coordinates, etc.), so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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