search_trains

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what the response contains (departure/arrival times, duration, distance, running days, fare estimates) in lieu of an output schema. It omits limits, pagination, result caps, and what happens for invalid or ambiguous station codes.

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 verb and scope front-loaded followed by the returned fields; no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and return content adequately. The only gaps are edge-case behavior and any routing guidance against the many sibling lookup tools.

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 per-parameter descriptions and examples, so the schema already defines from/to/date fully. The description adds the semantic that both are station codes but never mentions the optional date parameter or its format.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (trains) plus the exact scoping mechanism: two Indian Railways station codes. This implicitly separates it from search_trains_by_name and get_train_by_number, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied by the phrase 'between any two Indian Railways station codes'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_trains_by_name, get_train_schedule, or get_live_running_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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