uk_live_departures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source ('TransportAPI station timetables endpoint with live data'), which adds context, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter guidance and implementation detail in two efficient sentences, with no redundant 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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete for a simple lookup tool. It covers purpose and parameter use but lacks behavioral details like error cases.

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 explains the parameter 'station_code' as a CRS code with examples ('PAD', 'MAN'), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Station Code' title, though it could detail format constraints.

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 ('Get live departure information'), resource ('for a UK train station'), and key constraint ('using its CRS code'), with examples provided. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying UK focus and live data, unlike generic departure 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (for UK train stations with CRS codes and live data), but does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, which include other departure-related tools.

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