Estado del dataset GTFS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read profile is established. The description adds the actual output fields (availability, download date, validity), which is useful behavioral context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't describe output format or clarify what the 'validity' (vigencia) field means semantically.

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?

Single concise sentence listing exactly what the tool returns. No wasted words, front-loaded with the resource name. Slightly dense for a non-expert but efficient. Could arguably benefit from a tiny bit more explanation of the fields, but that would add length without proportional value.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (3 fields). The output schema handles return-value details. Given the low complexity (no params, no mutation), this is reasonably complete. Minor gap: no context on the 'vigencia' semantics or how to interpret availability.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so schema has nothing to document. With zero params, the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed and simply returns status, which is appropriate for a zero-arg introspection tool.

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?

Description states it returns GTFS dataset status: availability, download date, and validity period. Clear verb (get) + specific resource (GTFS dataset status). It lists the fields returned. Doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the resource (GTFS dataset) is distinct enough from the stop/route/journey siblings that differentiation is implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no context about why one would query this (e.g., checking data freshness before planning journeys, understanding how recent the GTFS feed is). Given the sibling tools like plan_journey and get_arrivals depend on GTFS data freshness, the description could note this relationship but doesn't. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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