transit_station_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world; description adds source (ODPT) and output characteristics (per line, bilingual summary), but doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior. This aligns with the annotation hints.

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?

Two concise sentences, no filler, all information relevant to the tool's purpose and source.

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?

With a simple single-parameter input and read-only annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output type, though exact response fields are unspecified.

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 fully describes the 'name' parameter (station name in kanji, kana, or romaji), so description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that coverage.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as providing real-time delay and operational status for a station per line, with bilingual summary. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transit_line_disruptions by focusing on station-level status rather than line-wide disruptions.

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?

Description gives clear context that this is for querying station status in Japan, but doesn't explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like transit_line_disruptions or transit_stations_search. No exclusions are provided.

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