bus_service_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the likely volume (~100 alerts with no filter), that alerts are mostly Portuguese-only, and how defaults behave, though it does not discuss update frequency or source reliability.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then presents parameters in a compact, scannable block. Every sentence and parameter note adds actionable information.

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 there is an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers all five parameters, their formats/defaults, the no-filter behavior, language limitation, and when to invoke the tool, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: line_id is described as a 4-digit line number with an example, stop_id as a 6-digit stop id with an example, include_upcoming and language defaults are explained, and limit is given a default and maximum.

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 states a specific resource and scope: service alerts for Carris Metropolitana, including the kinds of disruptions covered. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling bus tools such as bus_next_arrivals, bus_line_info, and bus_find_stops.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use before recommending a trip, or when the user asks whether a line is disrupted. It also explains that filtering by line and/or stop is optional and that no filter returns all current alerts.

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