lyon_trip_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool compares modes but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has other side effects. The list of modes is helpful but insufficient for behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and include a key exclusion. Every word adds value 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (2 required, nested objects) and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks parameter guidance, though the existence of an output schema may partially compensate for return value documentation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the parameters (origin, destination, modes, preferences, departure_at, arrival_before). This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to fill these complex fields.

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 compares multiple modes of transport (TCL, Vélo'v, P+R, car, walking) between two locations, which is a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool lyon_next_departures.

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 mentions using this tool for comparing modes between two places and notes it does not replace lyon_next_departures for a single stop. This provides clear context but does not cover when to use other sibling tools.

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