railway_train_getByNumberUse this tool when the user asks train details for a known 5-digit train number. Calls /trains/getTrain and returns core train information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| train_number | Yes | 5-digit train number (e.g., 19489). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Upstream railway API payload. | |
| train_no | Yes | Queried 5-digit train number. | |
| time_stamp | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific API call and that it 'returns core train information', which is useful context but does not elaborate on what 'core' includes or any error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
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 sentence that conveys the main purpose and usage, with zero waste. It is concise, front-loaded, and each clause adds value.
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?
The tool has a simple single-parameter input, clear annotations, a 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists enabling structured results. The description sufficiently covers the use case and behavior for a straightforward lookup tool. It could mention the output format but the output schema handles that, so the description is complete enough.
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% and the only parameter 'train_number' is thoroughly described in the schema with format and example. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: 'Use this tool when the user asks train details for a known 5-digit train number.' It specifies the verb ('get train details'), the resource ('train number'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing the known 5-digit number. The internal call '/trains/getTrain' adds specificity.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when the user asks train details for a known 5-digit train number.' It implies the condition of knowing the train number, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like route-based search or live status. Given sibling tools exist for those, the guidance is clear enough to differentiate, though it could explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: station board, train search (with/without date), train details, live status, PNR status, route. The only potential confusion is between railway_train_betweenStations and railway_train_searchByRouteDate, but the descriptions explicitly note the date-based difference, reducing ambiguity.
All tools share the 'railway_' prefix and include an entity (station/train), but the style is mixed: some have clear verbs (getByNumber, searchByRouteDate), others use nouns or adjectives (route, pnrStatus, liveBoard, betweenStations). This inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for an Indian Railways information server. Each tool addresses a distinct common query type (station board, train search, train details, live status, PNR status, route), with no unnecessary bloat or obvious missing core functionality.
The tool surface covers the main railway information needs: arrivals/departures, train search (both with and without date), core train details, live running status, PNR status, and route. Notable gaps include seat availability and station name lookup, but these are not critical for the stated scope.