no_trip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'door-to-door trip planning' but doesn't clarify if this includes real-time data, estimated times, cost, accessibility options, or error handling. For a trip planning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context, but the presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, making it minimally adequate.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'two StopPlaces (NSR IDs)', which hints at 'from_id' and 'to_id', but doesn't explain what NSR IDs are, their format, or the optional 'date_time' and 'results' parameters. It adds minimal value beyond the 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 the tool's purpose as 'door-to-door trip planning between two StopPlaces (NSR IDs)', which specifies the verb ('trip planning'), resource ('StopPlaces'), and scope ('door-to-door'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'be_search_connections' or 'ch_search_connections', which may offer similar functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'be_search_connections' or 'ch_search_connections', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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