Search ClickBus trips and prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'GPS/street redacted', a meaningful privacy behavior that is not present in annotations, and 'Does not book' reinforces the non-mutating nature. Some behavioral details like response format or pagination are absent, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and endpoint, then adds the two most decision-relevant constraints ('Does not book' and 'GPS/street redacted'). Every word 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 search tool with strong annotations and a schema defining required parameters, this description is largely complete for selection and invocation. The only notable gaps are that prices are mentioned only in the title, not the description, and the meaning of privacy_mode values is left unclear. Overall, the agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 60%, so the description is not required to fully compensate, but it still adds no parameter-level detail. The schema documents from/to and departure_date with examples and format, while privacy_mode and response_format have enums but no descriptions; the description does not explain what 'summary', 'structured', or 'raw' mean. This lands at the baseline acceptable level.

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 opens with 'Read-only trip search on /api/v4/trips', naming a specific verb and resource, and the title adds 'trips and prices'. The explicit 'Does not book' clearly separates it from booking operations, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like clickbus_book and clickbus_search_places.

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 makes it clear this tool is for searching trips and not for booking, which is a valuable when-not-to-use signal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions, but the sibling list plus the read-only framing lets an agent infer appropriate use.

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