Alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the data source ('the TTC's own site endpoints'), flags reliability as 'best effort', specifies the timezone (America/Toronto), and notes that stations/stops are resolved to objects and that nightly windows and shuttle info are included. It omits failure modes, rate limits or freshness/caching behaviour.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, how to filter, then operational caveats (resolution, timezone, best effort). Everything is front-loaded and the parenthetical asides are genuinely informative rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be restated, and the description covers scope, filters, timezone and reliability. The remaining gap is combinability of filters and the meaning of the unlisted 'type' enum members, which matters for a zero-coverage schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it names all four filters (route, station with 'id, name or alias', stop number, type). However, it never maps the 'type' parameter to its eight enum values, omits 'delay' and 'other' entirely, and says nothing about whether filters are optional or combined with AND.

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?

States a concrete resource ('Current TTC alerts') and enumerates the alert categories returned (subway closures, surface suspensions/detours, reduced speed zones, elevator/escalator outages), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names the related siblings (detours, service_status, service_changes), so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'current alerts' and the filter list, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion pointing at siblings like detours or service_status that cover overlapping ground. An agent must infer that this is the umbrella alerts feed rather than the narrower ones.

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