Get stop accessibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses what data is returned (per-quay wheelchair access plus summary) and what is deliberately excluded (equipment detail), along with the data-source context of Entur's free vs authenticated API. This goes beyond the bare minimum, though it does not state output format or authentication requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the limitation stated in a clear note. No redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with high schema coverage, the description covers purpose, data scope, and known limitations. It lacks explicit return structure details, but given no output schema, the high-level description of 'per-quay wheelchair access, and a summary' is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result. Minor gap is the absence of response field names.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already includes pattern, example, and guidance to obtain from resolve_stop_place. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's high coverage, 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('a stop place'), and the precise scope ('per-quay wheelchair access, and a summary'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_quays or resolve_stop_place, which serve different 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 description conveys its scope and limitation (deeper equipment detail not available), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when to use them. It implies that for elevator/tactile detail you'd need a different API, but no sibling tool is suggested, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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