list_languages

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the HTTP method (GET) and the result shape (languages with station counts), conveying a read-only aggregate lookup. However, it does not mention auth, rate limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 sentence with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the endpoint is included as compact useful precision rather than clutter.

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 simple two-parameter list call with an output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It omits filter semantics and timeout meaning, and with no annotations or schema-level documentation, the agent is left to guess on non-default usage.

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 for the two parameters. It only shows filter as a URL path placeholder and says nothing about valid filter values or format; the timeout parameter is entirely unexplained. An agent cannot confidently construct a non-default filter from this text.

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 clearly states the operation and resource: 'Broadcast languages with station counts' and specifies the GET endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling station-search tools because it returns aggregate counts per language rather than individual station records.

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 description implies the use case—retrieve available languages and their station counts—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like find_stations_by_language or other list_* tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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