swiss_transport_stationboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'No API key needed,' which is useful, but it doesn't disclose what the response looks like, whether results are real-time or scheduled, pagination behavior, or how it resolves station name variants. For a tool that could return many data points, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The 'No API key needed' note is genuinely useful information for an agent deciding whether to use this tool. Concise and front-loaded.

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?

This is a data-retrieval tool with a clear station parameter and useful filters (limit, transportations) in the schema. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the return data and behavior (real-time vs scheduled, time horizon, station name matching). It's minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about output format and semantics.

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%, with all 3 parameters documented. The description adds the 'No API key needed' note but otherwise doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Since the baseline is 3 for high schema coverage and the description adds marginal value (no custom formats or interaction notes), a 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get next departures from a Swiss public transport station.' It distinguishes from siblings like swiss_transport_connections (which does routes) and swiss_transport_station_search (which finds stations). The scope is specific to departures from a single station.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that swiss_transport_station_search should be used to find station names first, nor distinguish it from swiss_transport_connections (journey planning) or swiss_transport_gtfs_realtime. No exclusions or context provided.

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