Koleo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core return value (route and stop schedule) but omits operational details such as the behavior of the 'closest' flag, default date handling, caching policies, or potential error conditions.

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 is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant words. However, given the tool's complexity (4 parameters with zero schema descriptions), the description may be overly terse rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema (removing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete due to the 0% parameter schema coverage and lack of annotations. The undocumented 'date' and 'closest' parameters are critical for proper tool invocation and should have been explained.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. While it implicitly maps 'brand and number' to their respective parameters, it completely ignores the optional 'date' and 'closest' parameters, leaving half the input space undocumented.

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 ('Get') and resource ('full route and stop schedule'), and specifies the lookup method ('by brand and number') which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_get_train_by_id. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar schedule-based siblings like tool_get_realtime_timetable or tool_get_train_calendar.

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 mentions the identifier pattern (brand and number) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_search_connections or tool_get_train_by_id. It also fails to explain when the optional date/closest parameters should be utilized.

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