traffic_disruptions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: results include both active and planned disruptions, are ordered most-severe-first, and elevator/escalator outages are counted but not listed. That last caveat is genuinely useful because it pre-empts an agent assuming a complete outage picture.

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?

Purpose and usage examples are front-loaded, and the args block is compact. The example questions are somewhat repetitive with the opening sentence, but each still earns its place as a concrete trigger, so there is little waste.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, trigger examples, identifier format, default behavior, result ordering, and a content caveat. An agent has everything it needs to decide to call it and to construct a valid argument.

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%, so the description must carry the whole burden for the single optional 'line' parameter, and it does: it supplies the canonical naming convention with four examples ('Metro 7', 'RER B', 'Tram T2', 'Transilien L') and defines the null/default behavior as a network-wide summary. This removes the main failure mode of a free-text line identifier.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get current traffic disruptions, incidents and works on the Île-de-France network' — plus a stated scope (active and planned). That is far more precise than the bare name 'traffic_disruptions', but it never names or contrasts the siblings (search_stop, next_departures, plan_journey), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Three concrete example questions ('Are there problems on Metro 7?', 'Is the RER A running?', 'Any disruptions right now?') give a clear trigger context, and the args block states that leaving 'line' empty yields a network-wide summary. What is missing is any when-not guidance, e.g. that live departure times belong to next_departures or routing to plan_journey.

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