Get train status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat that live status data may be missing regardless of schedule availability — important for an agent deciding whether to retry or fall back. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or refresh cadence.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and inputs, with no filler. The second sentence earns its place as a real caveat rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is input format guidance (date and origin identifier conventions) and the expected behavior/response when live status is unavailable — a notable gap for a 4-parameter, zero-coverage schema.

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 0% across four required parameters. The description only restates the parameter names in prose ("operator, train number, service date, and origin identity") and adds no format guidance for serviceDate, trainNumber, or origin, and does not mention the trenitalia/italo enum restriction. "Origin identity" vaguely implies an identifier but leaves the code-vs-name question open.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get live status") and enumerates the identifying inputs, which clearly separates it from the search_* siblings that return schedules rather than live state. It stops short of naming an alternative tool outright, but the retrieved artifact is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "Live status may be unavailable independently of schedules" hints that schedules are a separate concern, but the description never says when to prefer this over search_train_journeys or get_station_board, nor what to do when status is unavailable. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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