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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it names the underlying model (Dojazdomat), the averaging window (weekday 7-9 morning), the return contents (nearest stops at both ends), and the unreachable edge case where minutes is null beyond ~2 h. Only minor gaps remain (no auth or rate-limit notes), which is acceptable for a public data lookup.

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 key clause (door-to-door minutes by public transport plus walking) is front-loaded, and edge-case behavior is stated last. The bilingual parenthetical restates the same point, which is mild redundancy but serves a legitimate localization purpose.

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 four-coordinate lookup, the description covers mode, model, averaging window, return contents, and the null/unreachable case. With an output schema present it need not explain return structure further, and the only omission is guidance on sibling selection.

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 every parameter is documented with type, unit, WGS84 ranges, and the geographic bounding box. The description adds no syntax or format detail 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 names a specific metric (door-to-door minutes), the mode (public transport plus walking), and the temporal scope (weekday 7-9 average), and it also discloses that nearest stops are returned. It is clear what the tool produces but does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like rank_neighborhoods or find_place.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. An agent can infer it is a point-to-point commute query, but nothing routes it away from sibling tools such as rank_neighborhoods.

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