alphaportal_get_bus_location

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

The description discloses that it returns the last known position and that it is empty when the bus is not currently running. This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't mention rate limits or data freshness, but the key behavior (last known position, empty when not running) is clearly stated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and return values, and includes the edge case (empty when not running) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns, when it's empty, and the AM/PM distinction. It could mention whether the location is a single point or a history, but the phrase 'last known position' clarifies that. The lack of an output schema means the description's list of fields (latitude, longitude, speed, vehicle id) is valuable and sufficient.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that studentId comes from alphaportal_list_students, which is helpful, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting live GPS location of a student's bus for a selected run. It specifies the exact data returned (latitude, longitude, speed, vehicle id) and distinguishes it from other alphaportal tools by focusing on bus location rather than student info, notifications, or settings.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a bus's live location for a student's AM or PM run. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., alphaportal_get_student, alphaportal_get_student_stops) makes the use case clear. It also notes the empty result when the bus is not running, which helps the agent decide if the tool is appropriate.

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