Koleo MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what time period the statistics cover, or any rate limiting. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured and front-loaded with key information. However, it is overly concise given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions, leaving insufficient space for necessary usage context.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to clarify the distinction between 'statistics' and 'availability' (critical given tool_get_seat_availability exists) or explain parameter formats. The existence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of input parameter guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate significantly but does not. While 'route segment' implies the stations parameter, it doesn't explain that stations requires an array format, what 'brand' represents (operator code?), or that date defaults to current day if null. Critical parameter semantics are missing.

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 resource (seat occupancy statistics) and scope (train on a route segment) with specific nouns. However, it uses the weak verb 'Check' and does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool_get_seat_availability, leaving ambiguity about whether this returns real-time availability vs. historical/analytical data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly tool_get_seat_availability. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., requiring valid train_number from tool_get_all_trains) or exclusion criteria.

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