getStation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: it's a read-only operation (explicitly stated), requires specific authorization ('stations:read' scope), and corresponds to a specific API endpoint. It doesn't cover rate limits or error behaviors, but provides essential operational context.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then adds essential operational details (API endpoint, required scope, read-only nature) in a single efficient sentence. Every element earns its place with no wasted words.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, authorization requirements, and behavioral constraints. It could mention what details are returned or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, it's reasonably complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the stationId parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Gets details') and resource ('about a specific station'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like listStations (which lists multiple stations) and getStationGroup (which retrieves group information). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context by specifying the required scope ('stations:read') and marking it as read-only, which helps determine when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like listStations or mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for multiple stations).

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