list_stations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists or searches (non-mutating), supports comma-separated types, and explains pagination via limit and offset. It does not describe the response shape or error behavior, but the read-only nature and key constraints are clear.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by two concise usage examples and a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers all six parameters, gives usage examples, and references a sibling tool. It lacks return-value details (no output schema exists) and only differentiates from one of five siblings, but for a straightforward list/search tool it is highly complete.

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 input schema has zero descriptions, but the Args section fully compensates: each parameter is documented with types, formats, allowed values, defaults, and pagination details. This goes well beyond the schema's raw property names.

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?

Clearly states it lists or searches public safety facilities with specific filters (type, state, name, ZIP). The verb 'list or search' and the resource are explicit, and the description differentiates from a sibling by saying 'For "what's nearest to X", use find_stations_near_address instead.'

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?

Provides concrete examples of when to use this tool ('how many fire stations are in Kansas') and explicitly points to an alternative tool for proximity queries. This gives clear context and an exclusion, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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