find_stations_by_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the endpoint shape, including an optional /exact path, but does not describe ordering, pagination, error behavior, or the meaning of exact matching. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters.

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. The endpoint is included in parentheses, adding useful disambiguation without bloating the text.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain exact matching, defaults, pagination, ordering, or timeout/hidebroken behavior, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool with the correct configuration.

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 needed to explain the parameters. The endpoint hints that value maps to {state} and exact maps to the /exact path segment, but the remaining six parameters are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 and resource: find stations by state/region, and the endpoint path confirms the exact query. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_stations_by_country and find_stations_by_tag.

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 state/region filter implies when this tool is appropriate among the sibling find_* tools, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or when to use the exact variant. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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