ch_search_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the API source (transport.opendata.ch) and data types (real-time, including specific fields), which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a search 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?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds API details and data specifics. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description provides good context on what the tool does and data included. However, it lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and sibling differentiation, leaving minor gaps for full agent understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly explain parameters, but it implies 'origin' and 'destination' as stations and mentions data types like 'departure times' and 'duration', which relate to 'date', 'time', and 'limit'. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, though not comprehensive for all 6 parameters.

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 the specific action ('Search for train connections'), resource ('between two stations in Switzerland'), and scope ('real-time connection data including departure times, duration, platforms, and transfers'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying Switzerland and the transport.opendata.ch API, unlike generic connection tools.

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 implies usage context (Switzerland, train connections) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ch_search_stations' or 'ch_get_departures'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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