Bus fares

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data behavior are covered. The description adds useful domain behavior—fares vary by passenger type/ticket and by distance-vs-section pricing—but does not disclose return shape, ordering, pagination beyond the schema's limit, or partial-result behavior.

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 fare definition is front-loaded and the examples are compact and useful. The opening sentence is long and colon-heavy, but it contains no obvious filler.

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 six-parameter, read-only fare query with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the fare model and gives realistic call examples. It stops short of describing returned fare fields or currency, which leaves a small completeness 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 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented thoroughly, including city codes, stop-name partials, routeName exactness, limit, and direction. The description reinforces city/route/from/to combinations with examples but does not add syntax or semantics for limit or direction 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 resource, bus fare, and scopes it by passenger type/ticket and by pricing model: distance between stops for coaches versus fare per section for city routes. The examples and coach-vs-city distinction let an agent distinguish bus_fare from rail/metro fare 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?

Usage is implied by the examples (InterCity coach with from/to versus city route by routeName), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative sibling such as bus_route_search for route lookup in the description itself. The examples provide context but leave the agent to infer selection rules.

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