Abfahrten

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: fuzzy resolution of stop identifiers, UTC semantics for when, a fixed two-hour window, and that includeRealtime toggles realtime data. It omits error behavior for unresolvable stops, defaults, and any rate or data-source caveats.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and the two-hour window before moving to parameter behavior. Every clause carries information, though the parameter notes are run together rather than separated, slightly reducing scanability.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and all parameters adequately. It does not describe the shape of returned departures or the meaning of realtime vs scheduled entries, which an agent may need to interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain all four parameters: stop accepts a name or stopPointRef and is fuzzily resolved, when is a UTC timestamp, includeRealtime controls realtime data, maxResults controls count. It still leaves types, defaults, and maxResults bounds unstated, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Liefert Abfahrten einer Haltestelle') plus the fixed scope of a two-hour window, which is more precise than the bare title 'Abfahrten'. It does not name or contrast any sibling (stop_search, journey, timetable), so an agent must infer differentiation from the resource alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: an agent can tell this returns a departure board for a stop within a two-hour window. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling timetable or journey tools, which is a real gap for a transit domain with overlapping tools.

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