get_train_occupancy

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read), and the description adds valuable behavioral details: automatic removal of train type prefixes, default date range up to 3 months ahead, and operator code mappings. 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 a brief intro, bulleted args, and examples. It is comprehensive without being verbose; every sentence adds 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 tool's complexity (two query modes, multiple parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: parameter semantics, usage patterns, and examples. It is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples, default values, and allowed values (operator codes). It clarifies the two modes and which parameters are needed for each.

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 occupancy forecasts for Swiss trains, specifies the output format (per class and segment), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transport_departures or get_train_composition by focusing on occupancy.

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 explains two usage modes (by train number or by route) and gives examples, guiding the agent on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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