Search stops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'search by name' and says nothing about case sensitivity, partial matching rules, result limits, pagination, or what the return structure looks like. For a search tool without an output schema, this is a notable 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, front-loaded sentence conveys the essential purpose with no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and easy to parse at a glance.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is still too sparse to be fully actionable. It fails to mention how this differs from sibling tools like find_nearby_stops or search_everything, and it offers no behavioral details that would help an agent anticipate the tool's output or edge cases.

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 already fully documents the only parameter ('query') with a description matching what the tool description says. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that the search is by stop name, which earns the baseline of 3.

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 ('search') and resource ('transport stops') with a clear scope ('by name'), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like find_nearby_stops or search_everything, 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?

The description only implies that this tool should be used when you have a stop name or partial name to search for. It provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when an alternative like find_nearby_stops would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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