get_transport_disruptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the types of data returned (Zugausfälle, Verspätungen, etc.), which supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 clear headline, bullet-like list of disruption types, parameter documentation, and examples. It is a bit lengthy but every part adds value, especially the examples. A slightly more concise phrasing might improve it.

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 has 3 optional parameters and no required ones, the description covers the main functionality and parameters. With an output schema existing, return values need not be explained. However, it could mention that the data is specific to Swiss public transport, which is already clear from the description.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It provides explicit meanings for each parameter, including filter text examples, language codes, and max results range, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 current disruption reports in Swiss public transport, listing specific types of disruptions (train cancellations, delays, track changes, line closures). This distinguishes it from siblings like transport_departures or transport_trip_plan, which serve different purposes.

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 provides examples and explains parameters (filter_text, language, max_results) with default values. It implies use cases (e.g., 'Alle aktuellen Störungen' with no arguments, filtering by city or line). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools.

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