NS Travel Information MCP Server

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 effectively describes key behaviors like returning multiple route options with status and crowding information, but it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a tool with real-time data.

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 and efficiently lists key features in two sentences without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, such as specifying optimization options and return data, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity of a route planning tool with real-time data and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic functionality and return types, but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or limitations, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying the tool handles both departure and arrival times, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies, such as examples for dateTime 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get detailed travel routes') and resources ('between two train stations'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_arrivals or get_departures by focusing on route planning rather than station-specific information. It specifies the scope includes transfers, real-time updates, and journey duration.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('plan trips for immediate departure or for a specific future time') and mentions optimization options, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as using get_prices for fare information instead.

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