Search places (autocomplete)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that results are object ids usable as from/to or stop_id, and that the input is free-text. It does not describe ranking, result shape, or type-default behavior, but the core non-obvious behavior is covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the most important integration detail about returned ids. Every word earns its place.

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 search-style tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names supported entity types, input style, and the downstream use of returned ids. It is only slightly incomplete in not clarifying how results are ordered or how it differs from the sibling search_pt_objects.

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 schema already documents query, count, and types with good descriptions. The description adds downstream context about how ids are consumed, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Geocode / autocomplete') and a clear resource scope ('stations, addresses, POIs and cities'), and explains that returned object ids feed other tools. This makes the purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like search_pt_objects or places_nearby.

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: for free-text place search before calling plan_journey or departure/schedule tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or explain when to prefer search_pt_objects over this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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