Find public transport

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: results are sorted by distance, the included transit modes, and the returned fields (ref, operator, network, origin, destination). It does not mention side effects, but as a query tool the read-only nature is appropriately implied.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently lists all relevant output details. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the high-level return contents (stops, routes, modes, fields). It omits details about the exact response structure and edge cases, but for a query tool with a well-defined schema, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about sorting and output content but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. No additional value is needed, but none is really given.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and identifies the resource ('public transport layer') while enumerating the returned elements (stops, stations, platforms, terminals, route lines). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_parking_facilities and find_nearby_places by its transit-specific focus.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for querying public transport around a location, making its context obvious. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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