Search public-transport objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose the core behavior (search by name, return ids) and integration purpose. It omits edge behavior like ordering, match semantics, empty-result handling, or count limits, so it stops at basic transparency.

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 first sentence defines the operation and scope, and the second gives concrete downstream usage. Every phrase 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 simple three-parameter search with full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing links: what ids are for and how results feed into other tools. It does not define the response shape, but 'return their ids' plus the schema is sufficient for this complexity.

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?

Input schema already documents all three parameters, and the description adds little per-parameter detail beyond the same examples already present in the schema ('metro 14', 'RER A'). The downstream line_id use is useful context but not new parameter semantics, so baseline 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?

States a precise action ('Find public-transport objects by name and return their ids') and enumerates the object types searched, which separates it from sibling search_places/places_nearby. It also anchors the result with the 'metro 14' → 'line:...' id example.

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?

Tells the agent exactly when to invoke it: resolving a named PT line to an id for next_departures/stop_schedules, or for blocking lines/modes/networks in plan_journey. It does not name alternate tools or include exclusions, but the PT-object scope makes the choice clear.

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