rta_gtfs_static_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the download is anonymous (no credentials), the old mirror is dead (HTTP 401), and no GTFS-RT feed exists. This informs the agent about authentication needs and data limitations, going beyond minimal requirements.

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 four sentences, each adding essential information. The first sentence states the purpose, and subsequent sentences provide critical context without redundancy. It is well-structured and concise.

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?

Given there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the tool's purpose, authentication, data source status, and limitations. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description is not required to explain parameters. However, it adds valuable context about the feed (anonymous, dead mirror, no real-time), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Return download details for the RTA GTFS static feed.' It specifies the verb (return) and resource (download details for the static feed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rta_search_bus_routes or rta_salik_tariff, which handle different data.

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 provides context on when to use: for obtaining the static feed download details. It notes that the download is anonymous and that the old Transitland mirror is dead, implying the current tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though the sibling list suggests no direct alternative exists.

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