get_bus_details

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the default behavior (returns key milestones for token efficiency) and the verbose behavior (complete numbered stop list), which is a critical behavioral trait. It also lists the types of information returned. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication, or error handling, which would be useful but not essential for a read-only lookup.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, and the second sentence explains the token-efficiency behavior and how to override it. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description lists the key return elements (route details, platform bay, spoke category, stop sequence) and explains the verbose toggle, giving the agent enough to know what to expect. Minor gaps remain, such as error behavior or exact response structure, but these are secondary for a simple lookup tool with only two parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the default vs. verbose behavior for the 'verbose' parameter and providing real examples for 'bus_number' that illustrate the accepted format. This helps the agent understand how to set parameters appropriately.

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 states a specific verb ('Lookup') and resource ('route details, platform bay at Periyar Bus Stand, spoke category, and stop sequence') for a specific Madurai bus number. It provides concrete examples of bus numbers ('44', '77', '11A', '5') and clearly differentiates from the sibling search tools by focusing on a specific bus rather than searching across routes or stops.

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 when a specific bus number is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_bus_routes or search_bus_stops. No mention of 'use this when you have an exact bus number; use search when you don't' or any other exclusion criteria. The guidance is implicit at best.

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