city_departuresПервое/последнее отправление и число рейсов по каждому направлению (по расписанию партнёра).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | Город: русское название («Москва») или слаг (moskva) | |
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only adds a data-source note ('according to the partner's schedule') but does not disclose limit behavior, ordering, date range, default values, or failure modes.
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 one concise sentence with no redundant words. The core data fields are front-loaded, and the partner-schedule qualifier is supplementary. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 two-parameter tool, the description and schema identify the required city parameter and the general output, but gaps remain: the meaning of 'limit', the time period covered, and the output structure are unspecified. Since there is no output schema, these omissions matter. Overall, it is minimally adequate but not complete.
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 50%; only 'city' is described in the schema. The description adds no explanation for the 'limit' parameter, its effect on returned directions, or its default value. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 output content: first/last departure and number of trips per direction, which identifies the tool's specific resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like search_routes and find_transfer, though it lacks an explicit verb, relying on a noun phrase.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
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.
Several tools overlap: search_routes and cheapest_destinations both list destinations from a city with price information, and city_departures/get_route both touch schedule details. The other tools are more distinct, but the listing-style tools create some ambiguity despite helpful descriptions.
Five tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_distance, get_route, get_station, find_transfer, search_routes), but cheapest_destinations, city_departures, and price_per_km_stats are descriptive noun phrases. The naming is readable and consistently snake_case, but the verb convention is not uniform.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a bus travel information server. Each tool contributes a meaningful capability around routes, pricing, transfers, stations, or statistics, without feeling bloated or overly thin.
The set covers the core traveler workflow: searching routes, finding cheap options, getting detailed schedules, handling transfers, checking distances, looking up stations, and comparing price statistics. Minor gaps exist, such as no arrival-focused query or direct city-pair comparison beyond route lookup, but they are workable.