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 mention whether this performs real-time searches, cached lookups, rate limits, or if it requires specific authentication. The description also does not clarify if this tool books tickets or merely queries schedules.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and complex search functionality, the brevity results in under-specification rather than optimal conciseness. It is front-loaded but incomplete.

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 tool has 7 parameters (5 optional), 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It mentions only the core concept (searching connections) while ignoring filtering capabilities (date, direct, brands), result limits (length), and pricing options (include_prices).

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 across 7 parameters, the description inadequately compensates. While 'between two stations' implies the purpose of 'start' and 'end', it completely omits the other 5 parameters: date format, what 'brands' refers to (operators?), whether 'direct' filters for non-stop journeys, what 'length' controls (result count vs journey duration), and the implications of 'include_prices'.

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 resource (train connections) with specific scope (between two stations). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like tool_get_departures or tool_search_stations, though the 'between two stations' phrasing implicitly distinguishes origin-destination searches from single-station queries.

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 like tool_get_departures (for departures from a single station) or tool_get_train_by_id (for specific train details). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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