Cerca Numero Treno

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a behavioral scope ('corse attive' only, i.e. non-archived runs) and the essential return payload, but says nothing about read-only nature, error handling, or limits, which is a notable gap for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and example first, then the return summary and downstream usage. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description supplies purpose, a usage workflow, and a brief return characterization. It is nearly complete, missing only read-only/auth disclosure that the absent annotations would otherwise cover.

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% and the single integer parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates meaningfully by giving the example value 9611, clarifying the expected numeric train-number format.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cerca le corse attive associate a un numero di treno') with a concrete example (9611). It also names the sibling tools it feeds (stato_treno, itinerario_treno_canvas), which signals its role as the ID-resolution step, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against an alternative lookup.

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?

Implies a clear workflow: call this first to obtain the millisecond value, then pass it to stato_treno or itinerario_treno_canvas. It establishes context well but gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition or eligibility constraint beyond 'corse attive'.

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