Cerca Stazione

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned fields (id, long name, short name, label/city) and the prefix-matching behavior, which is useful. It omits case sensitivity, result limits, pagination, and whether the prefix must be non-empty, so behavioral coverage is only partial.

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?

Two tight sentences: the matching behavior comes first, the return payload second. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description helpfully summarizes them anyway. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the only real gap is the absence of guidance distinguishing it from the autocomplete sibling.

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 schema documents the single parameter only as type string with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that 'prefisso' is the prefix the station name must begin with. That meaningfully clarifies how the parameter is matched, though it doesn't specify case handling or minimum length.

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 verb (cerca) and resource (stazioni) plus the exact matching mode ('il cui nome inizia con la stringa specificata'), so the agent knows this is a prefix search, not a full-text search. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling autocompleta_stazione, leaving the choice between the two to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as autocompleta_stazione or dettaglio_stazione, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must guess the intended use case from the name alone.

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