sbb_get_rail_disruptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable context: data is refreshed every 5 minutes, and the response includes cause, affected lines, and time windows. 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 well-structured with a short summary, use-case sentence, parameter list, and return format. Every sentence adds value, and the layout is clean and easy to scan.

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?

For a read-only data-retrieval tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (list of records with title, description, published, start, end, type, author), the update frequency, and the available parameters. It is complete for its purpose.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter (limit, offset, response_format) with default values and allowed options. While the schema also describes these, the description makes the tool usable without needing to inspect the schema, adding clarity.

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 uses a specific verb 'abruft' (retrieves) with a clear resource: current rail disruptions and messages. It explicitly mentions the live update interval (alle 5 Minuten) which distinguishes it from related SBB data tools, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It states 'Ideal für Echtzeit-Monitoring und Kommunikation bei Ereignissen' which clearly indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools cover other data domains, so the context is sufficient.

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