live_departures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the ~2-hour window, the types of information returned, and the data-source fallback chain, which are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then adds a concise data-source note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

The description covers core behavior and data provenance, and an output schema exists, so return structure is not a gap. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, making it only partially complete for a 5-parameter tool.

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 60%, so the schema already explains several parameters. The description adds a time-window frame but does not clarify rows, include_calling_points, or how offset_minutes interacts with the board, leaving some parameter semantics under-specified.

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 identifies a live departure board with a specific time horizon and output content (expected times, platforms, delays, cancellations). It is distinct from live_arrivals, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from departure_platform or platform_departures.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool over siblings like live_arrivals, platform_departures, or timetable. The mention of Darwin/RTT/timetable fallback provides data-source context but not usage routing.

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