sbb_compare_stations

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining it combines three datasets (passenger frequency, station users, platforms). However, it does not detail behavioral aspects like sorting, data freshness, or specific output structure. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds moderate value.

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 one-line purpose, explanation of dataset combination, usage context, and an explicit Args section. It is moderately concise, though the Args section somewhat duplicates schema information. Front-loaded with the main action, earning a high score.

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 the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description's mention of a tabular comparison return is sufficient. It covers key aspects like input constraints and usage context but could mention data limitations (e.g., valid station names) or error handling. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read-only tool with good annotations.

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's Args section adds meaningful summary including constraints (2-10 stations) and purpose of each parameter. Although the input schema already provides descriptions for 'stations' and 'year', the tool description enhances clarity by explicitly stating the range and default behavior, justifying a score above the baseline.

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 the tool compares multiple SBB stations based on passenger frequency and platform data, using the verb 'vergleicht' and specifying the resource 'SBB-Bahnhöfe'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sbb_get_passenger_frequency and sbb_get_platform_data by emphasizing multi-station comparison.

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 indicates usefulness for planning decisions, presentations, and location analysis, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. While it implies multi-station comparison, it lacks guidance on preferring this over individual station tools available as siblings.

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