Find nearby stops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state the return format, how results are ordered (presumably by distance, but unstated), the number of results returned, or any radius/limit constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the coordinate-based selection method is immediately clear. The description is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the return shape (what fields stops include), result ordering, and any limit on the number of stops returned. Since there is no output schema to compensate, an agent cannot fully predict the call's result without additional context.

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 100%, with both parameters documented as 'Latitude.' and 'Longitude.' The description adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters adequately and the description merely references them without adding format, range, or constraint details.

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 (Find), a clear resource (stops), and the selection method (by latitude and longitude). It clearly conveys a geo-location lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_stops, which likely also finds stops but by name/query rather than coordinates, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. With search_stops, search_everything, and get_stop_arrivals available, the description doesn't state when a coordinate-based lookup is appropriate or when an alternative (e.g., text search) should be preferred. This leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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