ovapi_departures

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (data may change). The description adds that it returns realtime departures and lists fields, but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness details. The behavioral traits are adequately covered by annotations with moderate added context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and input requirement, then output fields. Every sentence adds value without waste. It is concise and well-structured.

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 are 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It only explains the required parameter (timingPointCode) and lists return fields but fails to document pagination (top, limit, offset), dryRun, verbose, or outputFormat. The output structure is not fully described, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 low (25%), with only timingPointCode and line having descriptions. The description adds meaning for timingPointCode (required, example, lookup instructions) but ignores other parameters like top, limit, dryRun, offset, verbose, outputFormat. The schema provides defaults but no descriptions, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 provides realtime public transport departures for a Dutch stop, listing the required input (timingpointcode) and the output fields (line, destination, times, delay, status). It differentiates from siblings like ns_reisinformatie by covering tram/bus/metro/ferry and specifying the source (OVapi).

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 explicitly states the requirement for a timingpointcode, provides an example (32002646), and tells the user where to look it up (9292 or OVapi/GTFS index). It warns not to pass a stop name. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or alternatives for other transport modes.

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