be_search_stations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it's a search operation but doesn't describe what results look like, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are sorted/filtered. The agent would need to guess about these important behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary details or explanations.

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 search tool with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't address behavioral aspects like result format, limitations, or error conditions that would help the agent use it effectively.

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?

The description mentions searching 'by name' which adds context about the 'query' parameter's purpose, but with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this provides limited additional value. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but with 1 parameter and minimal semantic explanation, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive parameter guidance.

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 action ('Search for') and resource ('Belgian train stations by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ch_search_stations' or 'no_search_places' beyond specifying the Belgian geographic scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'be_search_connections' or 'ch_search_stations'. It mentions the Belgian scope but doesn't explain why one would choose this over other search tools or what specific use cases it addresses.

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