ch_search_stations

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 states the tool is for searching, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Search for Swiss train stations by name or location.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, parameter meanings, and behavioral traits. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, though the output schema may help with return values.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description mentions searching 'by name or location,' which hints at the 'query' parameter's purpose but doesn't explain the 'type' parameter or its default value 'station.' It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for Swiss train stations by name or location.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Swiss train stations'), and scope ('by name or location'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ch_nearby_stations' or 'be_search_stations', which prevents a score of 5.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'ch_nearby_stations' for location-based searches or 'be_search_stations' for Belgian stations, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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