search_bus_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior of returning key milestones for token efficiency, the verbose flag to get complete stop lists, and the output categories (fares, platform bays, map links). This is sufficient for a read-only search tool, though it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any rate limits.

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 well-structured sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the core purpose and returns, and the second explains the default and verbose toggle. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return content, and parameter-driven behavior (verbose, transfers). It omits edge cases or error handling, but these are minor for a straightforward route search, and the return description is helpful given no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the default for verbose (token efficiency) and implicitly confirming the default of max_transfers (1-transfer options), but it does not elaborate on the format or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('bus routes between two stops in Madurai'), and enumerates the return contents (stop counts, PBS platform bays, TNSTC fares, map links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bus_details, search_bus_stops, and calculate_fare, which target different concerns.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for finding routes between two stops, and the sibling names imply alternatives, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus when to use get_bus_details, search_bus_stops, or calculate_fare. The context is clear but exclusions are only implicit.

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