sbb_get_platform_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (e.g., length_m, gross_area_m2, accessible), but does not elaborate on behaviors like rate limits or data freshness. The annotation coverage reduces the burden, but the description is adequate.

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: a brief introductory sentence, a bulleted list of parameters, and a clear return section. It is concise without being overly terse, and the information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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 low complexity (single input object) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the return listing), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks usage prerequisites or edge cases, but for a read-only data retrieval tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (station_name, platform_type, etc.), making baseline 3 appropriate. The description repeats these parameter meanings but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. It does, however, list the return fields, which helps with understanding the output.

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 that the tool retrieves platform data (length, area, type) for SBB stations, using a specific verb ('Ruft ab') and resource ('Perrondaten'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sbb_search_stations and sbb_compare_stations by focusing on platform details.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for usage, exclusions, or references to sibling tools that might be used for related tasks like station search or comparison.

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