Returns the public-transport journey time in minutes between two Swiss places, using the national timetable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Destination as a place or station name. | Zürich HB |
| from | Yes | Origin as a place or station name, e.g. "Feusisberg". Not a postcode on its own. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the result is a duration in minutes, that it is for public transport, and that it relies on the national timetable—useful context beyond the raw schema. It does not cover edge cases like unavailable routes or real-time delays, but this is a simple lookup tool.
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 that states the action, output, mode, and geographic scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 is simple: two string parameters with clear schema descriptions and no output schema needed because the return value is described as 'time in minutes.' The description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'from' and 'to' already documented with examples and constraints. The description adds the contextual framing of 'two Swiss places,' which aligns with the parameters, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), an explicit resource ('public-transport journey time in minutes'), and a clear geographic scope ('between two Swiss places'). The sibling tools are unrelated (municipalities, tax, listings), so the tool is easily distinguished without needing extra 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 makes the intended use clear: retrieve a public-transport journey time in minutes between Swiss places. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are in entirely different domains, so there is no ambiguity about when to use this tool.
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.
Each tool has a broadly distinct role: municipality lookup, tax ranking, tax detail, tax calculation, apartment listings, and commute time. However, favorable_municipalities, municipality_detail, and tax_lookup all touch tax comparison and could cause an agent to pick the wrong one without reading carefully.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are noun-plus-operation (municipality_search, tax_lookup), while others are descriptive phrases (favorable_municipalities, commute_time). The names are readable but do not follow a consistent verb_noun convention.
Six tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a meaningful step in the Swiss relocation/municipality-comparison workflow. None feel redundant or padding.
The toolset covers the core workflow: find a municipality, assess its taxes, compare it to a current home, check listings, and estimate commute time. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to combine commute filtering with tax ranking, but the surface is largely complete for its stated purpose.