get_station

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the response includes (address, phone, coordinates, and for hospitals beds, trauma level, ownership) and gives an ID format example. It doesn't mention error handling or auth, but for a non-destructive retrieval tool, the main behavioral traits are adequately conveyed.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and key scope, and the Args line efficiently documents the parameter. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what data is returned, and the expected ID format. The sibling context clarifies when this tool fits, and no additional behavioral information is necessary.

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 schema provides only the name and type of station_id (string). The description adds meaning by explaining it as a facility ID and giving a concrete example ('fire_CA_12345'). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though only one parameter exists.

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 a specific action (get full record) on a specific resource (one facility by ID), and lists the included fields (address, phone, coordinates, and hospital-specific data). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_stations_near_address or list_stations, which serve different lookup or listing purposes.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a facility ID and need the full record. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the implied scenario (direct ID lookup) is evident from the description and sibling tool names. Lacks explicit exclusion, so not a 5.

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