find_stations_by_language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the operation is an HTTP GET (implying read-only) and that an exact-match variant exists via [/exact]. It does not disclose case sensitivity, whether value is a language name or code, pagination defaults, ordering behavior, or the semantics of hidebroken and exact.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler: action, resource, example, and endpoint all earn their place. It is economical and easy to parse, though the brevity veers toward under-specification given eight undocumented parameters.

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 zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about the meaning of most parameters and the exact-match behavior. The presence of an output schema excuses the lack of return-value detail, but the core calling semantics are under-documented.

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 adds meaning for 'value' via the example 'english' and for 'exact' via the [/exact] path segment. The remaining six parameters (limit, order, offset, reverse, timeout, hidebroken) receive no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 verb ('Find'), resource ('stations'), and filtering dimension ('broadcast language'), with an example value ('english') that clarifies input format. The endpoint URL adds precision by showing the bylanguage path and the optional /exact segment. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the language dimension inherently distinguishes it from the by_name/by_country/by_tag siblings.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_stations_by_name or list_languages, nor any when-not conditions. The only usage hint is the example value 'english' and the optional /exact endpoint variant, which implies exact matching but never explains when exact=true should be chosen.

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