search_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It does not declare whether the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, though it implies a query-like operation. The mention of 'returns station IDs, coordinates, and relevance scores' is helpful, but lacks explicit 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 concise and well-structured, using a short paragraph with bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. The description addresses key aspects: search by name or coordinates, and resolving ambiguity. However, it omits explanation of the 'type' parameter and does not mention any result limits or pagination, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning by mapping use cases to parameters: 'query' for name, 'latitude'/'longitude' for GPS. However, the 'type' parameter is not described, leaving a gap. The description provides partial compensation, but not full 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: 'Find Swiss train stations, bus stops, and other transport locations.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_booking_link, get_stationboard, and plan_journey, which handle different tasks. The verb 'search' and resource 'locations' are specific.

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 explicit use cases: look up station name, find near GPS, resolve ambiguous names. It implies usage before planning a journey, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, it gives sufficient context for appropriate use.

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