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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that it returns specific fields, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. Since annotations are rich, the description's extra value is modest.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The most critical information (purpose and return fields) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and usage guidance follows immediately. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the output schema exists (returns structured data) and the tool is simple (single parameter), the description fully covers the necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description of the 'query' parameter already includes examples and case-insensitivity details. The main description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline score of 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?

Clearly states the verb 'search' and the resource 'Indian Railways stations', and specifies the returned fields (station code, full name, state). It also explicitly identifies when to use this tool via the sibling reference 'irctc.train_search/status', distinguishing it from other 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover station codes for irctc.train_search/status'. This clearly instructs the agent to invoke this tool before using the train search or status tools, providing necessary context.

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