ClickBus seat counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by noting the data comes from 'live trip JSON' and by explicitly disclosing a specific failure mode: full seat-map requests trigger an HTTP 500. This is honest and behaviorally relevant.

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 compact: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core data fields and then gives the key limitation. A slightly clearer verb at the start would improve it, but it is 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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. Required parameters are covered by the schema, and the limitation statement is helpful, but an agent still lacks guidance on privacy_mode/response_format semantics and how returned data is structured.

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 only 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. The undocumented 'privacy_mode' and 'response_format' parameters are left unexplained, and the description does not clarify how 'availableSeats/totalSeats' relates to those options or what output shape each mode produces.

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 indicates the tool provides 'availableSeats/totalSeats' from 'live trip JSON', which communicates a seat-availability lookup for ClickBus. It does not use an explicit verb or name a sibling, but the combination of title and description makes the purpose understandable and distinct from trip search or booking tools.

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 line 'Full seat map HTTP 500 is an honest gap' implies this tool is not appropriate for full seat-map requests and gives an important limitation. However, it does not state when to use the tool, which sibling might handle full seat maps, or any other routing guidance.

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