find_stations_by_country

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds the GET endpoint and shows the optional /exact route, which is useful, but it does not explain default fuzzy-matching behavior, pagination, result shape, or any request constraints.

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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, example, and endpoint without wasted words. The key action phrase appears first, and the endpoint parenthetical enriches it efficiently.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is too thin. It omits most parameter semantics, matching behavior, and guidance for choosing between country, country-code, and state lookup variants; the output schema covers returned fields, so that absence is acceptable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps value to a country and hints that exact controls the /exact route, but leaves limit, offset, order, reverse, timeout, and hidebroken semantically unexplained despite their defaults being visible in the schema.

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 states the exact action ('Find stations by country') with a concrete example ('Australia') and the underlying endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_stations_by_country_code and find_stations_by_state.

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 tool is clearly for country-name lookups, and the example reinforces that. It does not explicitly say 'use country codes with find_stations_by_country_code', but the context makes the applicable scenario unambiguous enough.

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