getPlannedTimetable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation for retrieving data, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the returned data takes, or whether it supports pagination for large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval function.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. While efficient, it could potentially be slightly more concise by combining the two sentences.

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 read-only tool with 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and usage scenario but lacks important details about the return format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand what to expect from the tool's execution.

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 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation including examples and format specifications. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it merely restates that parameters are for station, date, and hour without providing additional context or clarification. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: retrieving planned timetable data for a specified train station, date, and hour. It uses specific verbs ('holt...ein' - fetches/retrieves) and identifies the resource ('Fahrplandaten' - timetable data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getCurrentTimetable, which appears to serve a similar function but for current rather than planned data.

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 provides implied usage context by stating the tool is useful for planning schedules in advance and obtaining information about future train connections. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getCurrentTimetable or findStations, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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