ClickBus boarding points

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool relies on live trip JSON because dedicated boarding URLs fail, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 very short and front-loaded, with each sentence carrying information. The second sentence is telegraphic but still earns its place as a key caveat, though it could be phrased more clearly.

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?

With no output schema, a cryptic two-sentence description, and five parameters including two enums, the agent is left without enough context about expected output, the meaning of 'boarding points', or how response_format and privacy_mode affect results.

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 adds nothing about the parameters. The schema covers the three required slugs/date with examples and gives enums for two optional fields, but at 60% coverage the description could have clarified privacy_mode and response_format behavior, and does not.

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 identifies the resource (boarding terminals/points) and the source (live trip JSON), but it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', leaving the action to be inferred. It is more specific than a tautology but not fully self-explanatory.

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 statement 'Dedicated boarding URLs 404/500' implies this tool is a workaround for broken dedicated endpoints, giving an indirect reason to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or mention any exclusions.

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