advanced_station_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET, implying a read-only operation), the at-least-one-filter requirement, and that *_exact flags toggle exact matching. But it doesn't state the default matching mode implied by those flags (fuzzy/substring vs exact), how multiple filters combine, or ordering behavior — so transparency is 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose plus endpoint, the required-filter constraint, then the exact-flag semantics. Information is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a 19-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a large sibling family, the description covers the obligation rule and exact-flag behavior but leaves notable gaps: it doesn't explain the default matching mode implied by the exact flags, how filters combine, or how this tool relates to the find_stations_by_* family. The presence of an output schema offsets the need to document return values.

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?

At 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the two most confusing areas: it enumerates which of the 19 parameters act as filter fields and explains the meaning of all seven *_exact flags. Control parameters (limit/offset/order/reverse/timeout/hidebroken) carry schema defaults, so their semantics are partially recoverable even without prose.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair — advanced station search with field filters — and pinpoints the endpoint (GET /json/stations/search). 'Advanced' and 'field filters' tacitly separate it from the single-criterion find_stations_by_* siblings, though it never names one explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Provides a hard invocation rule (at least one of name/country/countrycode/state/language/tag/codec required), which is essential usage guidance for calling the tool correctly. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the nine find_stations_by_* siblings or search_radio_stations; selection context is only implied by the word 'advanced'.

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