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 burden. It describes the output (stations, times, durations) but lacks details on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the train does not exist. The description is functional but not fully transparent about behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context. Every part of the sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description mentions querying stops within a 'specified interval,' but the input schema does not include an interval parameter, causing a slight mismatch. Without an output schema, the description lists some return fields but omits the full structure. The tool is moderately complex with three parameters, and the description could be more complete by clarifying the interval concept.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description adds limited semantic value beyond the schema. It reinforces the context of querying stops but does not provide additional meaning for each parameter, except for the format parameter where it recommends 'text' default, which is already in the schema. 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 that the tool queries detailed stop information for a specific train, including stations, arrival/departure times, and stop duration. It explicitly indicates when to use it: 'when the user asks about stops of a specific train.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with station codes or ticket purchasing.

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 provides a clear usage guideline: use this interface when the user asks about the stops of a specific train. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among sibling tools, which would have improved the score.

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