commuter_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data sources (opendata.ch + SBB) and scope (home to work, active disruptions), but doesn't elaborate on return format, pagination, freshness, or potential side effects. For a read-only snapshot this is acceptable but not rich.

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 and front-loaded, containing a clear headline, a practical usage example, and a data-source note in just two sentences. No wasted words.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and data context. It could add nuance about what 'next connections' means or how disruptions are prioritized, but the essential context is present.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters already described as starting and ending points. The description adds the directional 'home → work' framing but no additional syntax or format details, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states what it does: 'Daily commute snapshot: next connections home → work plus any active disruptions.' It uses a specific resource (commute) and differentiates from siblings by explicitly combining connections and rail-traffic information.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: 'Use this tool for a quick morning sanity-check.' It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the combination of connections and disruptions makes the use case clear.

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