listStations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (explicitly marked '[READ-ONLY]'), requires specific authorization ('stations:read' scope), and corresponds to a specific API endpoint. It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination details beyond 'paginated', or error behaviors, leaving some gaps.

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 with three tightly packed sentences that each earn their place: states the core functionality, provides API correspondence, and specifies authorization requirements. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no 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 list/read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, behavior, and authorization. However, it doesn't describe the return format (what a 'station' contains) or pagination mechanics beyond mentioning 'paginated', leaving some contextual gaps for the 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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain filtering/sorting mechanics or provide examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('list of stations') with specific operational characteristics ('paginated, filtered, and sorted'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getStation' (singular retrieval) and 'listStationGroups' (different resource type), providing precise scope differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Gets a paginated, filtered, and sorted list of stations') and mentions the required scope ('stations:read'), giving clear context for usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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