ns-bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing what the tool returns (trip options with specific fields like duration, transfers, status, price), default behaviors (e.g., date_time defaults to current time), and practical usage notes (e.g., using search_stations for codes). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 (purpose, args, returns, example) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more tightly or trimming some redundancy in parameter explanations.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, all parameters with semantics, return structure, and examples. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately focuses on explaining the return values' meaning rather than just structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 8 parameters: examples (e.g., 'ut' for Utrecht), explanations (e.g., search_for_arrival controls date_time interpretation), default values, and valid options (e.g., travel_class values). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose as 'Search for train trips between two stations with pricing information' and identifies it as 'the main tool for route planning.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it returns trip options with connections, travel times, and prices, unlike get_departures (likely real-time departures) and search_stations (station lookup).

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 clear context by stating this is 'the main tool for route planning' and includes guidance on using search_stations to find station codes for parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. get_departures (e.g., for planning vs. real-time info) or any exclusions.

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