search_trains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. It does mention a limitation (no fares), but overall behavioral detail is 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return value (list of trains with departure/arrival datetimes, duration, stops, intermediate stations) and notes the absence of fares. This covers the essential information for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: from_station (with resolution rules), to_station (with example), and date (with format example). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type/title.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Search Haramain (HHR) train schedules between two stations on a date.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('HHR train schedules'), and the mention of 'Haramain' distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_intercity' and 'list_stations'.

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 operational details, such as how station names are resolved (e.g., 'Jeddah' vs 'Jeddah Airport'), and notes that fares are not included. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the specificity of the domain implies its appropriate context.

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