12306-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a query/read operation (consistent with 'get' naming) and mentions it's for obtaining data, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The debugging mention adds some context, but key behavioral aspects remain undocumented.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first states core functionality, second provides usage context. Every phrase adds value without repetition. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup tool and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 lookup tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage context adequately. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should ideally provide more behavioral details (response format, error handling) and parameter specifics. The debugging mention adds some completeness but doesn't fully address the gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description mentions the station_telecode parameter and its purpose. However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, constraints, or explain what a telecode is. With 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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: querying station details by station_telecode, listing specific information returned (name, pinyin, city). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on telecode lookup rather than name-based or city-based searches. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like get-station-code-by-names.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when station_telecode is known, for obtaining complete station data, or for special queries/debugging. It explicitly states it's less commonly triggered in general user conversations. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools or provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance beyond the general usage context.

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