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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the returned content (planned vs expected times, delay in minutes, deviation messages), which implies a read-only real-time query. It does not state data freshness, upstream provider dependency, or what happens on an unrecognized NSR-id, so the behavioral picture is only partial.

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?

Four compact sentences with the core purpose first, then the use-case framing, then the id prerequisite, then the optional filters. No filler, though the use-case question and filter note could be folded together slightly more tightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it does name the four returned data points. All five parameters are covered by the schema, so the only remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior for an invalid stop id or an empty result set.

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 100%, so every parameter including the NSR-id pattern and the line/destination filters is already documented. The description reinforces the NSR-id format and confirms filters can be combined with «og/eller», but adds no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource («Hent avganger fra et stoppested») plus the exact payload («planlagt vs. forventet tid, forsinkelse i minutter og eventuelle avviksmeldinger»). It also names the sibling that produces the required identifier («Bruk NSR-id fra finn_stoppested»), so an agent can separate this from the lookup tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering question («Svarer på «er bussen i rute?»») and a prerequisite (obtain the NSR-id via finn_stoppested), plus optional narrowing by line/destination. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or describing behavior for a missing/invalid stop id.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the key downstream contract (returns NSR-ids consumed by avganger) but doesn't state pagination/limit behavior or exact return shape beyond ids. Good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, examples, return contract, and usage rule. No waste.

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?

Complete for a simple 2-param lookup with full schema coverage; the description covers purpose, return semantics, and sequencing with the sibling. Lacks only explicit note on what happens with no matches.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description gives example name values matching the 'navn' param, but adds nothing about 'antall' beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb+resource in Norwegian ('Søk etter holdeplass/stasjon i Norge etter navn') and gives concrete examples. Clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'avganger' by explaining it returns NSR-ids used by that tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Bruk alltid dette først hvis du ikke kjenner id-en' (always use this first if you don't know the id), naming the exact condition and the downstream alternative. Full when/when-not guidance.

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