Bus tickets

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: prices are Toman per adult, the departure terminal field matters because Tehran has several terminals, and the source site provides no arrival time. Those caveats are exactly what an agent would otherwise discover only from the results.

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 core capability and scope land in the first clause, and the following sentences are short and load-bearing rather than filler. Minor structural oddity: the `from_terminal` note concerns an output field but sits mid-description, slightly interrupting the input-oriented flow.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it lists the result fields and flags the missing arrival time. Currency units are stated. It stops short of describing pagination or total-count behavior behind `limit`, which is a modest gap for a search tool.

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 origin/destination formats, date patterns, sort enum, limit bounds and only_available are already fully documented. The description's only additional detail, `from_terminal` and per-adult Toman pricing, describes return values rather than inputs. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Search intercity bus tickets") and bounds the scope precisely: two Iranian cities, one day. It also enumerates the returned fields (company, bus type, times, price, seats). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling al_buses_cheapest, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is conveyed only through an example query ("buses from Tehran to Shiraz tomorrow"), which implies the when-to-use context. There is no statement about when not to use it, and no routing to al_buses_cheapest or al_bus_seats even though both are close alternatives.

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