Get ticket fare

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 usefully discloses that the result is itemized into base fare, reservation/superfast charges, catering, dynamic surcharge, and GST. However, it does not mention absence of side effects, possible errors, or behavior around unavailable fares; the read-only nature is only implied by the name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core object appears immediately, and the enumeration of fare components adds useful detail without redundancy.

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 read-only fare query with 8 parameters but no output schema, the description and schema together are largely sufficient. It explains what the returned fare will include, while optional defaults and parameter enums are already in the schema. The main gap is not explicitly routing to/from sibling tools or describing error behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases key dimensions like train, class, quota, and stations, but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 what resource is produced: an itemized fare for a specific train, class, quota, and station pair. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_pnr_status and check_seat_availability because it focuses on fare breakdown, not status or availability. It lacks an explicit verb, but "Itemised fare" is still a clear and specific object.

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 context is clear: use this when you need the fare for a train, class, quota, and stations. The description does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the distinction from seat availability and PNR status tools is reasonably evident from the domain.

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