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. While it mentions the tool returns '一个包含多个车站信息的列表' (a list containing multiple station information), it doesn't specify important behavioral aspects like whether the city name must be in Chinese characters, what happens if the city doesn't exist, whether there are rate limits, or what format the station information includes beyond name and code.

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, well-structured Chinese sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and output format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details about error conditions, response format specifics, and behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains that the 'city' parameter should be a '中文城市名' (Chinese city name), which adds crucial semantic information beyond what the bare schema provides. However, it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., simplified vs traditional characters) or validation rules.

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 specific action ('查询' - query), resource ('火车站的名称及其对应的 station_code'), and scope ('所有' - all stations in the city). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-station-by-telecode' and 'get-station-code-by-names' by focusing on city-based retrieval of all stations.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need to get ALL stations in a Chinese city with their names and codes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the distinction is implied through the different resource focus.

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