bike_friendly_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excellently discloses that the bike-allowed status is a 'heuristic only,' details assumptions per train category (S/RE vs IC/EC/ICE vs buses/trams), and advises verification on sbb.ch/velo. This is thorough and honest about limitations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent heuristic explanation is directly relevant and earns its place, providing necessary caveats without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds 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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity. It explains the core behavior (annotating legs with bike heuristics), discloses limitations, and the output schema presumably covers return values. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, with all three parameters (from_station, to_station, limit) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Find connections and annotate each leg with a bike-allowed heuristic.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_connections (which likely just finds connections) and accessible_route (focused on accessibility). The purpose is unambiguous and concrete.

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 implies usage for bike-related routing queries by explaining the heuristic's behavior and providing a verification note. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit 'use instead of' guidance.

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