station_departures

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only hints at license restrictions but omits critical details: what happens if the station id is invalid, whether departures are real-time or scheduled, pagination behavior, or data freshness. The phrase 'where the source data license permits' is vague.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, the conditional clause 'where the source data license permits this presentation' adds unnecessary length and confusion, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format (e.g., list of departures with fields), pagination beyond 'limit', error responses, or how date/time filtering works. A more thorough description is needed for reliable tool invocation.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't explain the 'date', 'time', or 'limit' parameters' roles. The 'limit' parameter lacks a schema description, and the description does not compensate.

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 tool retrieves a station departure board, using a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_station' or 'plan_route', and the added license condition introduces ambiguity without clarifying when the tool is usable.

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 (e.g., 'get_station' for station details, 'guidance_plan' for trip planning). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of appropriate contexts.

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