accessible_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses the data source (SBB PRM), the limitation (no vehicle/wagon-level accessibility), and the scoping (endpoint stations only), preventing users from over-trusting the 'accessible' label.

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 two sentences: a direct purpose statement and a compact note with a necessary caveat and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema is present, so return-value details are covered structurally. The description addresses purpose, limitations, and data source, making it sufficiently complete for a 3-parameter tool with a clear use case.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so 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 a specific action: find connections and annotate them with station-level accessibility info. The scope (station-level, endpoint stations only) is explicit and distinguishes it from generic connection tools like get_connections and from wagon-level alternatives.

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?

It gives a concrete alternative for wagon-level accessibility: SBB's official 'Reisende mit Handicap' service. The opening sentence implies this is the station-level route-finding tool, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_connections or state when to prefer this over them.

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