Get stop routes

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states an action ('get') but does not disclose response format, whether it returns a list or single entity, how routes are ordered, or any access/rate considerations. This is minimal even for a read-only operation.

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, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, but its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being 'appropriately sized' for full usefulness.

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?

With no output schema Lineand no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'routes serving a stop' returns (e.g., route identifiers, full route objects, aggregated info), nor does it address potential confusion with sibling tools like get_route_stops. Given the simple one-parameter schema, more contextual detail was expected.

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%: the only parameter, stationId, is documented as 'transport12 station id.' with integer type and bounds. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Get routes serving a stop' clearly states the verb and resource, and is distinct from siblings like get_stop_arrivals or get_route_stops. It is a straightforward, unambiguous one-liner, though it lacks any explicit differentiation from similar stop-related tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to prefget_stop_routes over get_stop_arrivals or search_routes, nor any context about typical use-cases or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer applicability from the name alone.

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