get_transport_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API source but doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, pagination, or what happens when no alerts are found. The return type 'dict: API response' is vague and doesn't explain the structure or content of the response.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for the mot_type options. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters. The only minor inefficiency is repeating 'to filter by' for multiple parameters, but overall it's front-loaded and efficient.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent doesn't know about rate limits, authentication, error handling, or the structure of returned data. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the date format (DD-MM-YYYY), default behavior (today's date), enumerates all mot_type options with clear mappings, and provides examples (e.g., '020T1' for line_number). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'transport alerts from the Transport NSW API', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_transport_stops' or 'get_departure_monitor', which likely serve different purposes (finding stops vs monitoring departures vs getting alerts).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'find_transport_stops' or 'get_departure_monitor'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. The only contextual information is the parameter descriptions, which don't constitute usage guidelines.

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