get_station_timetable

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose scope (all trains, station-level, single date, includes through/arriving/departing), which implies a read-only query, but it says nothing about whether results are scheduled vs. real-time, ordering, result volume, or paging — meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 sentence with the core operation front-loaded and the parenthetical alias placed at the end for disambiguation. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, this is nearly complete — the agent knows the scope and inputs. The only shortfall is that, with no output schema, the description never indicates what fields the timetable entries contain or how many results to expect.

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 100%, with both station_code and date formats (YYYY-MM-DD / DD-MM-YYYY) spelled out in the schema. The description only restates that a station and a date are required, adding no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get all trains passing through, arriving at, or departing from a station'), and the parenthetical 'station timetable / arrivals & departures board' removes ambiguity. It implicitly separates itself from the train-centric sibling get_train_schedule by being station-scoped, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage is inferable from the phrasing — an agent would pick this for an arrivals/departures board rather than a train's schedule — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives like get_train_schedule or get_live_running_status.

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