Coach sequence (Wagenreihung)

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the important detail that the platform and sectors are real-time, which reinforces the open-world nature, and it narrows applicability to ICE/IC/EC. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient sentences. Core purpose is front-loaded, and the use case and availability restriction each add necessary selection information without 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere. The description covers purpose, domain, constraints, and a concrete use case. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but given sibling names and context signals, the selection boundary is clear enough.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'train' must be an ICE/IC/EC long-distance service, and ties 'station' and 'when' to the departure context at that station.

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 exactly what the tool provides: coach order and platform sectors (A–G) for 1st class, bistro, bike, and quiet coaches, plus the real-time platform. It also explicitly scopes to ICE/IC/EC trains, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools about journeys, departures, or offers.

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 identifies the intended user question ('where do I stand on the platform') and gives a clear exclusion ('not available for regional trains'). It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over the listed siblings.

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