sbb_get_rail_disruptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: update frequency (5 minutes) and response content structure (time windows, descriptions). No contradictions.

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 key information upfront, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise but could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers input parameters comprehensively, includes output schema details (title, description, published, start, end, type, author), notes update frequency, and provides usage context. The output schema existence supports completeness.

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?

Despite the context indicating 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a detailed Args section explaining each parameter (limit, offset, response_format) with types, defaults, and constraints. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 current rail disruptions and reports, updated every 5 minutes, with specific content (title, description, cause, start/end time, affected lines). It is distinct from sibling tools by focusing on real-time disruptions.

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 explicitly says 'Ideal für Echtzeit-Monitoring und Kommunikation bei Ereignissen', indicating when to use. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling tools are sufficiently different to avoid confusion.

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