stl_gtfs_routes

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., result size, pagination behavior). Given annotations present, it's minimally transparent but no contradictions.

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?

Description is concise, with a clear main sentence and an argument list. No irrelevant details.

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?

Description includes output fields but omits details about snapshot meaning, search behavior, or pagination. Given the presence of sibling tools, some context is available, but not fully self-contained. Output schema is said to exist but not shown.

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?

Description does not explain any of the five parameters (limit, offset, search, snapshot, route_type). Schema coverage is 0% - parameters are only listed with types and defaults, no semantic meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('routes'), and specifies output fields (ids, names, type, trip counts). Siblings include singular 'route', so this is clearly the plural list operation.

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?

Does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor conditions for filtering or pagination. No comparison to stl_gtfs_route or other query tools.

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