search_bus_stops

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

The description discloses that GPS coordinates are 'verified' and 'if available', indicating optionality, and mentions bilingual and autocomplete behavior. However, it does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain result format, pagination, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides only partial behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with key attributes (bilingual, autocomplete, search) and lists return fields without redundancy. It is concise and well-organized, though it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists the returned fields but does not specify the return structure (e.g., array of objects, count, sorting). It also omits any limit or pagination behavior, leaving some ambiguity about what an agent should expect from the invocation.

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 already achieves 100% coverage with a rich description of the 'query' parameter, including examples in English and Tamil. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (search) and resource (bus stops) with a defined scope (across Madurai) and lists explicit return fields. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like search_bus_routes (routes) and get_bus_details (specific bus details), making it evident this is the stop-search tool.

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 implies usage for finding bus stops, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_bus_routes or get_bus_details. There are no mentions of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing conditions, leaving usage largely inferred from the tool name and purpose.

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