find_stations_by_country_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey a read-only 'find' operation and the exact-match endpoint, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, timeout behavior, or how hidden/broken stations are treated.

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?

A single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes a helpful example, and adds the endpoint reference without filler. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with seven parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It is enough to make a basic call with the required value, but an agent lacks the information needed to use optional parameters or confidently distinguish this from sibling country/search tools.

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 usefully clarifies that the required 'value' parameter is an ISO country code via the 'AU' example, but it leaves the other six parameters (limit, order, offset, reverse, timeout, hidebroken) completely unexplained.

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 a specific operation ('Find stations'), a precise key ('ISO 3166-1 country code'), and gives a concrete example ('AU') plus the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with find_stations_by_country, but the code-based scope makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus find_stations_by_country, advanced_station_search, or other search siblings. The description explains what the tool does but not the conditions or context that should lead an agent to choose it.

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