List Community Buses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context: the data source (tokyobus.or.jp), the scope (41 municipalities), and that detailed route/timetable info is deferred to external official links. It does not describe the response shape or any failure modes.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's subject and source, with no filler. Slight redundancy in restating the source and examples, but overall efficient.

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, annotation-heavy read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, source, organization (by municipality), and where deeper data lives. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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 0%, so the description provides no information about the single `language` parameter despite the rule that low coverage requires compensation. However, the parameter's name and its ja/en/zh enum are largely self-explanatory, so the gap is minor rather than severe.

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?

States a specific verb (displays/lists) and resource (41 municipality community buses in Tokyo from tokyobus.or.jp), naming concrete examples (ちぃばす, ハチ公バス, ムーバス). An agent can tell it is a curated directory listing rather than a route search. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_bus or get_operator_routes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The closing clause that timetables and routes are handled via links to municipal sites implicitly signals this tool returns a directory rather than detailed schedules, which is a mild routing hint but not direct guidance.

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