Search Connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens when no results are found. The description only describes the output format, leaving safety and behavioral assumptions unstated. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence, very concise, but at the cost of missing essential behavioral and usage guidance. Every word earns its place in describing the function and output, but the minimal length neglects important context. It is not overly verbose, but the lack of structural elements (e.g., separate sections or bullet points) reduces clarity for an agent.

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?

Given the complexity of 4 parameters, no output schema, and missing annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the exact structure of the return value (e.g., pagination, fields beyond those listed) or how to handle errors. The presence of siblings suggests a workflow, but no guidance is provided. For a tool that likely feeds into get_connection_details or get_price_offer, the description should be more comprehensive.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'two stations' but that is already covered by from/to fields). The description does not clarify constraints like station name format or ISO 8601 precision beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'search' and the resource 'train connections between two stations'. It explicitly mentions the return type: available trains with departure times, duration, and transfers. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_connection_details, which would focus on a specific connection, and search_locations for stations. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage for finding connections but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_connection_details or search_locations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The usage context is implied through the action and parameters, but without clear differentiation from siblings, the agent may not know when to choose this over other tools.

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