Resolve a place to a Stop Place ID

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a non-mutating lookup operation and names the external source (Entur), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the return format, how multiple candidates are returned, error/no-match behavior, or rate-limit expectations. It adds domain context but leaves edge behaviors to inference — acceptable, not complete.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded in sentence one, and the downstream-consumer guidance in sentence two earns its place by telling the agent how to chain the result. Compact and 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?

For a simple 2-parameter resolver with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete: it states the action, the output type, and the downstream use of the ID. Gaps are that no output schema exists (so return shape is unspecified) and ambiguous-match or no-match handling is undocumented. Adequate but with noticeable holes for a resolver.

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 100%: 'query' is documented with a concrete example ('Oslo S' or 'Bergen busstasjon') and 'max_results' with default/min/max bounds. Since the schema already carries the parameter meaning, the baseline is 3; the description's reference to 'place or address' merely echoes the query parameter's schema text and adds negligible new information.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Turn a place or address into') with a precise resource ('Entur Stop Place IDs'), and clarifies the domain (public transport stops/stations). It is implicitly differentiated from overlapping siblings like search_address, search_place_names, and validate_address by its outcome type (a Stop Place ID consumed by transport tools), though it never names a sibling explicitly to distinguish against — the distinction is implied by outcome rather than stated.

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?

Provides clear downstream context: 'Use the returned ID with the departure, trip, accessibility, quay, and fare-zone tools.' This tells the agent this tool is the prerequisite step for a family of transport queries, a concrete and actionable usage signal. However, it does not state exclusions or point to alternatives (e.g. 'for plain addresses use search_address, for raw names use search_place_names'), so competitors remain unspecified.

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