Поиск поездов

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: station codes must be numeric, there is no station-name resolver, and train_calendar returns an empty response for an invalid station pair.

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 yet dense with actionable detail: the operation, the key parameter formats, the known limitation, and the next steps. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information is placed early.

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 provides enough context for an agent to call the tool correctly, check unknown station pairs, and continue the travel flow with train_seats and train_book. Since an output schema exists, the absence of a verbose return-value explanation is not a gap.

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?

The input schema has 0% property descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining the critical parameters: origin/destination as numeric station codes with concrete examples, and date as YYYY-MM-DD. The optional parameters limit, adults, and children are not detailed, but their names and defaults are self-explanatory enough for this search context.

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 the operation as train search (Поиск поездов) with the required search criteria: origin, destination, and date. It also separates this tool from related siblings by naming the follow-up tools train_seats and train_book and the validation tool train_calendar.

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 explicitly provides workflow guidance: use train_calendar to validate an unknown or unverified station pair, and continue with train_seats then train_book after a search result. This gives an agent concrete routing among sibling tools and clear conditions for using alternatives.

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