transit_line_disruptions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'current' qualifier, indicating real-time data, but does not disclose details about disruption types, severity, or response structure. With annotations present, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool, the description sufficiently conveys the scope (current disruptions on a specific line) and the input domain (Japanese train lines). While there is no output schema, 'current service disruptions' hints at the response content. Slightly more detail about disruption categories or severity would improve completeness, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'line' has full schema coverage with an example ('jr-east-yamanote') and reference to transit_lines. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: retrieving current service disruptions for a specific Japanese train line. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transit_station_status and transit_alternative_routes by focusing on disruptions, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 the many transit siblings (e.g., transit_route_plan, transit_alternative_routes, transit_station_status). No mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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