Bus service alerts

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world operation, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds useful behavioral context about alert categories and affected routes/stops, but does not cover pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format 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 front-loaded, compact, and free of redundant explanation. The single summary sentence plus short examples efficiently communicates scope and query patterns.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately indicates the kind of information returned: alert types plus affected routes and stops. It is largely complete for a simple read-only alert lookup, though return shape and pagination remain implicit.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces city and route usage with examples but adds little beyond the schema for limit and keyword.

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, bus service alerts, and enumerates the alert types: detours, suspensions, moved stops, extra services, and operator news. It also clarifies scope with city or InterCity coaches and affected routes/stops, so an agent can distinguish it from unrelated sibling tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context: query by city, optionally by route, and supports InterCity coaches. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as ferry_alerts or rail_alerts, but the bus-specific scope makes the intended use clear.

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