List quays (platforms) for a stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It states the tool returns certain fields but omits any mention of error handling, empty results, pagination, or the response format. For a list operation with no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the main action and lists key output attributes. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 the essential purpose and core output fields, but without an output schema, it lacks a full specification of the response structure, edge cases, or error conditions. It is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 fully describes the stop_place_id parameter, including format and an example, with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 (list), a specific resource (quays at a stop place), and lists the output fields (public codes, coordinates, wheelchair access). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like get_stop_accessibility 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 only explains what the tool does, not when to use it or when to prefer alternatives. There is no statement about choosing this tool over other stop-related tools. The only guidance appears in the schema description (getting the ID from resolve_stop_place), which relates to parameter acquisition, not usage context.

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