İzmir ESHOT: durağa yaklaşan otobüsler (canlı)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavior that an empty list is returned when no buses are present, and mentions it's live data. It does not detail error handling, rate limits, or response format beyond the listed fields, so it adds moderate value but nothing beyond what annotations imply.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists return fields, and finally provides parameter usage guidance. The bilingual repetition (Turkish and English) adds some length but is not excessive. Every sentence contributes functional information, and the structure is logical.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters (one required), and the description explains the required parameter's source and the return fields. Although no output schema is provided, the description enumerates the expected fields, so the agent knows what to expect. It is complete enough for a low-complexity tool.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema ('Yalnızca bu hat' for hatNo, 'ESHOT durak numarası, örn. 21050' for durakId). The description adds extra value by telling the agent where to obtain durakId (via acikveri_ara), which is not in the schema. This elevates it above the baseline of 3 for full coverage.

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's purpose: 'Bir ESHOT durağına yaklaşan otobüsler' (live buses approaching an ESHOT stop), and lists specific fields returned (hat no ve adı, kalan durak sayısı, etc.). It identifies the resource (durakId) and the optional filter (hatNo), making it distinct from any sibling tool. The English translation reinforces clarity without ambiguity.

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?

The description provides a key usage guideline: how to find the required durakId via `acikveri_ara` with 'eshot durak'. It also notes that an empty list is returned when no buses are waiting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, though no direct sibling exists for bus arrivals, so the guidance is sufficient.

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