dispatch_get_amtrak

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

Annotations already provide read-only and idempotent hints. The description adds value by noting the configuration requirement and detailing the output format (JSON with train list, fields explained), which goes beyond annotation information.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, an output specification, and helpful examples. It is relatively concise but the examples add necessary context, justifying a score of 4.

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 zero-parameter tool with a thorough output specification and adequate annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisite, and return format. It is fully 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description implicitly confirms no input is needed, aligning with the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 current Amtrak train status at Washington Union Station, specifying the resource (Amtrak trains) and action (get status). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on Amtrak, while siblings handle flights or dispatch administration.

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 mentions the prerequisite of AMTRAK_FEED_URL configuration, indicating when the tool can be used. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context from sibling tools implies it's the correct choice for Amtrak status queries.

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