stl_gtfs_stop_resolve

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds context by stating it is a one-time analysis and that its verdict can be relied upon, which aligns with the annotations and provides additional behavioral clarity without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and starts with the core purpose, followed by details and context. It is slightly verbose with the 'This matters more than it looks' section, but this adds useful rationale without being excessively long.

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 provides sufficient context for the tool's overall goal and its importance, but it omits an explanation of the 'snapshot' parameter and does not specify the output format or how the 'verdict' is represented. This incomplete parameter understanding and output specification make it only partially complete 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 schema parameter 'snapshot' is not described at all in the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning, type, or usage, leaving the agent unable to correctly provide input.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Determine') and resource ('which GTFS field holds the number printed on a bus stop sign'). It also lists the actions (reports coverage, uniqueness, format, checks example, returns verdict) that make it distinct from sibling tools like stl_gtfs_stops or stl_gtfs_stop.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining why this analysis matters (no location API, so stop-number entry is the UX) and suggests a one-time invocation ('Run this once and rely on the verdict'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state conditions that would make this tool preferable over others.

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