sbb_get_infrastructure_construction_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing the returned data (name, location, type, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with a clear first sentence stating the purpose. It includes a structured Args/Returns section, which is efficient and easy to parse. Minor verbosity in repeating schema details is acceptable.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: retrieval of ongoing projects, filtering options, and returned schema. It is mostly complete, though pagination details could be more explicit.

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 input schema has a single nested parameter with 0% description coverage at the top level. The description compensates by listing each sub-parameter (city, project_type, limit, offset, response_format) with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 it retrieves ongoing SBB infrastructure construction projects, specifying examples like stations, tracks, and expansions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as sbb_get_rail_disruptions or sbb_get_real_estate_projects, 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 indicates suitability for urban planning, communication, and spatial planning, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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