sbb_compare_stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds that it combines three datasets and returns a table, but doesn't disclose potential failure modes (e.g., unknown station names) or default behavior for year, which is a moderate gap.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a context sentence, and organized Args/Returns sections. It is somewhat redundant with the schema (listing parameters) but remains compact and scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, but the Returns section specifies a tabular string with passenger frequency and platform metrics, which is helpful. However, the description omits the response_format option and does not address error handling, making it not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly in all cases.

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 description covers stations and year with examples and constraints, but omits the 'response_format' parameter entirely. While the nested schema provides detailed descriptions, the top-level 'params' has 0% schema coverage, so the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 'Vergleicht mehrere SBB-Bahnhöfe anhand Passagierfrequenz und Perrondaten', a specific verb+resource+criteria. It further distinguishes itself from sibling single-dataset tools by stating it 'Kombiniert drei Datensätze...' to create a compact comparison, clearly establishing its unique role.

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?

It explicitly lists use cases ('Nützlich für Planungsentscheide, Präsentationen und Standortanalysen'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to the sibling getters, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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