Alishan Forest Railway fares

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns single-journey fares in NT$, broken down by train type and passenger type, and includes distance. It does not describe error behavior or result shape, but for a read-only lookup the added context is substantial.

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 definition is one front-loaded sentence plus a concrete example. Every part earns its place: scope, currency, fare dimensions, distance, and parameter example.

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 simple two-parameter read-only fare lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the domain and expected return content. The main remaining gap is that it does not specify the return structure or how multiple fare rows are presented.

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. It does so by saying fares are between two stations and by mapping the example values '嘉義' and '奮起湖' directly to the from/to parameters, making clear that both parameters are station names. It still lacks accepted naming conventions or station-value guidance.

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 resource and scope: Alishan Forest Railway single-journey fares between two stations, in NT$, by train type and passenger type. Naming the railway line clearly distinguishes it from sibling fare tools such as tra_fare, thsr_fare, ferry_fare, and metro_fare. The example further anchors what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool or when to choose an alternative fare tool. Usage is only implied by the Alishan Forest Railway name, with no exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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