ns_reisinformatie

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool requires an API key and is realtime. These are useful but still leave out potential behaviors such as rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that packs essential information: purpose, operations, API versions, realtime nature, and authentication requirement. It is front-loaded and concise, though adding bullet points might improve readability for the many operations.

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?

The tool has 4 operations and no output schema. The description only says 'live train info' without describing the return format or what data each operation provides. For a tool with multiple operations, this is insufficient guidance on what the output will contain. More details on response structure or examples would aid completeness.

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 86%, so many parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the operation enum with Dutch translations and version numbers (v2/v3), and implies parameter requirements for different operations (e.g., 'trips' needs fromStation and toStation). This goes beyond the raw schema.

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 it queries the NS Reisinformatie API for live train info, listing specific operations (disruptions, departures, arrivals, trips) with API versions. It is specific about the resource and verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ovapi_departures' which also provides public transport 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 that the tool requires an API key and provides realtime data, giving basic context. However, it does not elaborate on when to use each operation or contrast with alternatives like 'ovapi_departures'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidelines are provided.

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