get_live_running_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the payload contents (delay, last crossed station, platforms, ETA/ETD), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It omits behavioral traits that matter: data freshness/refresh cadence, what happens for trains not currently running or not yet departed, and whether the optional date changes the live semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumerated return fields earn their place because no output schema exists to convey them.

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 2-parameter live-lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and returns adequately. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (train not running, stale data, date vs 'live' interaction), which an agent would need to call this reliably.

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 coverage is 100%, with both train_no and date fully documented including formats and a default, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline 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?

Specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time live running GPS status of any Indian Railways train'), plus an enumeration of the returned data. The word 'live/real-time' implicitly contrasts with static siblings like get_train_schedule and get_station_timetable, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'real-time live running status' implies you should use it while a train is en route, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_train_schedule or get_station_timetable, nor any prerequisite such as the train having departed.

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