Abfahrten (live)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that results are 'live' with real-time delay in minutes — useful since there is no output schema. It omits error behavior for unresolvable stops, whether live data can be missing/degraded, and any rate-limit or result-ordering details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the returned fields — every clause earns its place, and the field list compensates for the absent output schema. Slightly dense but no waste.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields and input flexibility, which covers the essentials. It still leaves gaps on failure modes (invalid stop), empty-result handling, and how limit affects output ordering, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 both parameters (stop, limit) are already documented in the schema, including the 'de:03241:11' ID format and the 1–40 limit range. The description's note that a stop name is resolved automatically adds only marginal value beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — live departures at a stop — with geographic scope (Hannover region) and the exact fields returned (planned/real-time time, delay, line, product, destination, platform). It is distinguishable from stop_search and journey_planner by implication, but never names or contrasts them 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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for departure boards, and 'stop name (resolved automatically)' hints that a prior stop_search lookup may be unnecessary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to journey_planner for actual trip planning.

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