lyon_mobility_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists the types of information but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, whether no parameters returns all data, or any side effects. This lack of behavioral detail limits transparency.

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 with two sentences covering purpose and an exclusion. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the description fails to document the three optional parameters thoroughly. It lacks examples or guidance on parameter combinations, making it incomplete for a tool with multiple inputs.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. The three optional parameters (areas, lines, include) are not explained, forcing the agent to rely on names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 the tool provides transport and traffic status (alerts, accessibility, traffic, construction) and explicitly excludes use for next departures at a specific stop. This clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling like lyon_next_departures, though it could be more specific about the exact output.

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 indirectly guides usage by stating what it is not for (next departures), implying it is for general mobility status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like lyon_trip_options or provide preconditions, leaving some ambiguity.

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