get-train-route-stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only query operation ('查询') and explicitly lists the information returned: stations, arrival times, departure times, and dwell times. This is adequate transparency for a simple retrieval tool, though it does not mention failure modes or response formatting.

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 two short, purposeful sentences. The first states the exact query scope and returned fields, and the second gives the practical trigger condition. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 low-complexity read tool with thorough schema documentation, the description tells an agent what the tool does and when to use it. The phrase '指定区间' (specified section) is slightly ambiguous because no interval parameter exists in the schema, but the overall picture is sufficient for correct 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for trainCode, departDate, and format, including the date-format instruction to call get-current-date. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('查询') and a specific resource ('特定列车车次的...途径车站、到站/出发时间及停留时间'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it is distinct from, though mentioning 'specific train' separates it from the station-code tools in the sibling list.

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 includes an explicit trigger: '当用户询问某趟具体列车的经停站时使用此接口' (use this interface when the user asks about stops for a specific train). It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as get-tickets, so it stops short of a 5.

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