Alishan Forest Railway timetable

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context annotations cannot: services change with season and weather, and the result itself tells the caller when to re-check the official site. That freshness caveat is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure about the reliability and nature of the returned data.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the freshness caveat and a concrete example. Efficient; the trailing example fragment is terse but functional rather than wasteful.

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?

A simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring its safety profile. The description covers scope, data volatility, and a usage example; only the return shape is unaddressed, which is acceptable for a low-complexity tool.

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 100%, so both `from` and `to` are fully documented including accepted name or station-ID forms. The description only restates the from/to pairing via an example and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (regular timetable of the Alishan Forest Railway) and its scope: all trains, or trains between two stations with times. The operator is named explicitly, which is enough to separate it from the sibling tra_timetable and thsr_timetable without opening any schema.

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 implied by the operator-specific framing and the from/to example, so an agent can infer it's the AFR counterpart to the other rail timetable tools. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so routing is left partly to inference.

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