sbb_get_infrastructure_construction_projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds value by detailing the return schema (name, location, type, category, link) and explaining the meaning of parameters, which goes beyond the annotation coverage. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise opening sentence, a note on contents, a usage line, and clearly formatted Args/Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 lack of an output schema, the description includes a useful return schema. It also documents all parameters and their purpose, covering the essentials. However, it does not explicitly mention default values (limit=20, offset=0, response_format=markdown) which are present in the schema, so it is not fully self-contained but still sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 only a top-level 'params' field with no description, and nested properties like limit, offset, and response_format lack descriptions. The description compensates by listing all five properties with types, meanings, and examples (e.g., city 'Zürich', project_type 'ausbau', limit max results, offset pagination, response_format markdown/json).

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 fetches running SBB infrastructure construction projects (stations, routes, expansion) and lists the contained fields (name, location, type, procurement step, links). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like sbb_get_real_estate_projects.

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 clear usage context by stating it is suitable for city planning, communication, and spatial planning. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions but still offers strong contextual guidance.

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