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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses defaults (today, now, 15) and a max cap (50), which are behavioral constraints beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about whether results include realtime vs scheduled data, error behavior for invalid stops, or pagination.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. No filler sentences, though the format is slightly mechanical rather than prose-efficient.

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?

For a 4-parameter query tool with no annotations but an existing output schema, the description covers all parameters with formats and defaults, and points to search_stops for ID discovery. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid IDs, realtime vs scheduled), which is a minor gap.

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: it gives the GTFS stop ID format with an example ('1:4173'), the date format YYYY-MM-DD, the time format HH:MM, and the limit bounds (default 15, max 50). This is meaningfully richer than the bare schema titles.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get upcoming departures from a specific stop.' An agent can distinguish it from plan_trip or get_trip_stops. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to search_stops to obtain the required stop_id, which is a real usage prerequisite. It lacks when-not guidance (e.g. use plan_trip for door-to-door itineraries), so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and it names the return contents (route details plus stops), but there is no disclosure of permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for an operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the parameter note is short and directly actionable. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate but the content inside it is non-redundant, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape is discoverable and the agent has enough to invoke the tool with a valid ID. However, with no annotations and no sibling routing guidance, the definition is adequate but not complete for a tool sitting among several related transit lookups.

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 coverage is 0% — the schema only says 'Route Id' as a string — so the description must carry the semantics, and it does: it identifies the format (GTFS route ID), gives a concrete example ('1:1'), and tells the agent where to source the value. This adds genuine meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get details about a transport route including its stops'), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling, get_trip_stops, which also returns stop information, leaving the route-vs-trip distinction to be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent is told where to obtain the ID ('Find these from stop search results'), which is useful workflow guidance, but there is no statement of when this tool should be preferred over siblings like get_trip_stops or plan_trip, nor any exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' and the stated return content imply a read-only retrieval, and the description says it returns all stops with arrival/departure times. However, it does not explicitly cover read-only safety, error behavior, timezone semantics, or data freshness.

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 the core action and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter retrieval tool. The trip ID source is repeated in both the usage line and the Args section, which is a minor redundancy but does not harm clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be fully specified. The description still usefully states that the result contains all stops with arrival/departure times and documents the only parameter's source. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around edge cases and error behavior.

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 one required parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so fully by naming the trip_id parameter, explaining it is a GTFS trip ID, providing an example format, and telling the agent where to find valid values in get_departures results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: getting the full schedule of a specific trip, including all stops and arrival/departure times. This distinguishes it from general stop or departure tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_route or get_departures beyond noting where trip IDs originate.

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?

Clearly says to use this tool to trace a vehicle along its route and see arrival times at each stop, and explains that trip IDs are found in get_departures output. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with other route-planning siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result ordering, or whether the lookup is a safe read. Aside from the radius cap, it offers no behavioral context beyond the bare purpose.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list; there is no filler or redundancy. Every line carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and a 3-parameter geospatial lookup is relatively simple. Still, the absence of any guidance on result limits or how it differs from search_stops leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 only partly does: lat/lon are merely restated as 'Latitude'/'Longitude', though the radius units (meters) and the max 2000 constraint are genuine additions beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (public transport stops) with the scope 'near a given location', which is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_stops, leaving the agent to guess which search tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'near a given location' – an agent can infer this is a proximity/geospatial lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to the overlapping sibling search_stops.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it documents defaults (today, now, 3 results, ~2000m walk limit, no transfer limit, 0 penalty), explains arrive_by semantics, and clarifies transfer_penalty behavior. It doesn't discuss rate limits, permissions, or failure modes, but for a read-only planning tool this is substantial behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then a structured Args block. Every line addresses a parameter. The only minor inefficiency is that the Arg lines are terse notes rather than flowing prose, but they are information-dense with no wasted sentences.

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?

For a 9-parameter planning tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers all inputs adequately, including defaults and semantics for behavior-affecting options. It could mention that results are itineraries or any geographic limitations, but otherwise it is complete enough 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 0%, so the description must compensate fully—and it does. All 9 parameters get meaningful explanations: from_place/to_place accept stop names or coordinates with examples, date/time formats are given, and transfer_penalty's effect on routing preference is explained. This goes well beyond type signatures.

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 verb+resource+scope: 'Plan a public transport trip between two locations in Estonia.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_departures or search_stops, which handle departure/stop lookup rather than full trip planning.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'Plan a public transport trip between two locations in Estonia,' but there are no explicit when/when-not guidelines or named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the tool for A-to-B routing versus, say, get_route.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states it searches stops by name but omits whether it is read-only, whether results are paginated, how matching works (exact vs. partial), or any authentication or rate-limit details.

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 lines and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter breakdown and examples. Every part earns its place with no filler or 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's low complexity, a single required parameter, and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the definition is nearly complete. It still lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and behavioral details like match semantics, but these are minor gaps for a simple search.

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 provides no parameter description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'name' is the stop name to search for and giving realistic examples ('Viru', 'Balti jaam', 'Tartu'), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare string type.

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 a specific verb (Search) and resource (Estonian public transport stops) with the scope 'by name'. It distinguishes from location-based siblings like nearby_stops implicitly, but does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as nearby_stops or how to choose between them. The only implicit cue is 'by name', which is not enough to count as usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says nothing about side effects or that the operation is a side-effect-free read, though for a version query there is little behavior to disclose.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value need not be explained, and the zero-parameter signature needs no elaboration. Only the absence of any usage context keeps this from being fully complete for its complexity level.

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 tool takes no parameters, and the description correctly specifies none. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the version of this MCP server'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, though the transit-oriented siblings make the distinction obvious by domain.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are given. For a zero-argument diagnostic tool the intended use (querying server version) is strongly implied by the name and description, so this lands at minimum-viable rather than misleading.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that positions are real-time and that vehicle_type defaults to all, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about data freshness, coordinate system, rate limits, or the shape of the response beyond what the output schema already covers.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block; no filler. The args section is slightly schema-like but each line earns its place by adding undocumented filter semantics.

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?

With only two optional parameters, both documented, and an output schema present so return values need no explanation, the definition is nearly complete. Minor gaps remain regarding what the GPS payload contains (coordinates, vehicle IDs, timestamps), but the essentials for calling the tool are present.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it names both parameters, enumerates the accepted vehicle_type values ('bus', 'tram', 'trolleybus'), states the default, and gives concrete line examples ('2', '17', '42A'). An agent can invoke this correctly without opening the 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Get real-time GPS positions of Tallinn public transport vehicles', including the city and the real-time qualifier. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_route or get_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 never says when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (get_route, get_departures, search_stops). The filter documentation implies a lookup pattern, but no context, prerequisites, or alternatives are offered.

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