sbb_get_platform_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the specific data returned (units, accessibility) and the output schema, exceeding basic annotation coverage. No contradictions with 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 structured with a summary, args, and returns sections. It is somewhat repetitive (schema repeated) but front-loads the purpose and stays within reasonable length for a data-retrieval tool.

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 provides a return schema and parameter details, making it self-contained. It does not address edge cases like filtering behavior or pagination caps, but covers essential invocation and output expectations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description lists all parameters with types, examples, and German explanations. It adds meaning by defining 'limit' as 'Max. Resultate' and pagination, and clarifies optional fields, compensating well for the schema gap.

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 retrieves platform data (length, area, type) for SBB stations, using a specific verb ('Ruft ab') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on platform-specific metrics, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for platform information via its content but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools or mention alternatives. No exclusion criteria or use-case guidance is provided beyond the inherent purpose.

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