Tableau de gare (temps réel)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (departure times, delays, platforms, at-platform status, cancellations), what it intentionally omits (arrival time), and its default behavior (La Hacquinière, direction Paris). It does not mention data freshness or output format, but the core behavior is well covered.

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: it opens with what the tool does and the exact kind of information returned, then handles exclusions and usage context, and ends with defaults. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to communicate return content; it does so by listing expected departure fields and explicitly excluding arrival time. It also covers defaults and fallback usage. A small gap is the lack of any statement about output structure or count behavior, but the description is largely sufficient for a real-time board 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents stop, count, and direction with defaults and enums. The description adds a default-stop reminder and direction default, but little new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 identifies the tool as a real-time departure board for a stop, listing specific fields like expected time, delay, platform, at-platform status, and cancellations. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from next_trains_to_paris by stating it does NOT provide arrival times, which removes ambiguity between siblings.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'il est où le train ?', 'sur quelle voie ?', and as a fallback if the journey planner is down. It also explicitly routes the agent to next_trains_to_paris when arrival time is needed, providing clear when-to-use versus when-to-use-an-alternative guidance.

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