get_station_facilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does so by specifying that it reports fixed facilities (a read-only operation) and enumerates what those facilities are. It does not discuss edge cases or data caveats, but the scope is clearly a non-destructive lookup, and the description adds value beyond the tool name.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the tool's function, the second provides usage guidance and examples. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the function, the scope (Swiss stations), and the intended trigger contexts. It does not discuss failure modes or alternatives to the 'station' parameter, but the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema make that acceptable.

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 single parameter 'station' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond that. Since the schema already provides the parameter meaning, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('fixed facilities at a Swiss station'), and lists concrete facility types (elevator, WiFi, step-free access, waiting room). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stationboard or get_connections, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'when the user asks about accessibility, amenities, or what to expect at a station,' and gives two example phrasings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the trigger context is clearly delineated, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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