Fahrten suchen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context: from/to are fuzzy-resolved names or stopPointRefs, when is UTC, includeRealtime toggles live data, maxResults caps the result set. However it is silent on failure behavior (no connection found), defaults, limits, or whether results are cached/scheduled-only.

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 tight, front-loaded block: the core purpose comes first, then the parameter semantics. Nearly every clause carries information, with only mild redundancy in re-stating the result contents.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input contract reasonably well and sketches the return shape (route, transfers, times). It still leaves gaps around error/empty-result behavior, defaults, and depth of realtime semantics.

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: all five parameters are addressed, with the crucial fuzzy-resolution and stopPointRef semantics for from/to and the UTC convention for when. It stops short of giving a concrete format for when, a default for maxResults, or the default for includeRealtime.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it returns possible connections between two stops, and it enumerates what those results contain (route, transfers, times). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like departures or timetable, though it never names them explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the point-to-point routing tool rather than a stop lookup or departure board. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer journey over departures or timetable, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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