spansh_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 behavioral burden. It hints that this is a raw Spansh passthrough but does not state that it is read-only, describe pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with partial/empty filters.

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 compact sentence with no wasted wording and is front-loaded with the endpoint name. Its terseness is efficient, though 'passthrough' makes it cryptic rather than explanatory.

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 7-parameter search tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain coordinate usage, pagination, system_name behavior, or the expected filter shape, leaving the agent to guess at most inputs.

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%, and the description only clarifies that the filters object can contain pads/services/market criteria. It says nothing about x/y/z coordinates, page, size, or system_name, so most parameters gain no meaning from the description.

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 identifies a station search against the Spansh /stations/search endpoint and notes pads/services/market filters. However, 'full passthrough' is jargon, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as spansh_find_nearby_stations or station_services.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like spansh_find_nearby_stations or inara_search_nearest. The endpoint name implies a search, but the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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