Site notices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: how route codes build the site path that notice rules match against, and that site_wide_active counts every active notice rather than only the filtered set.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the route-path mechanics and usage note. Three sentences with concrete examples, only mildly dense; the trailing reference to non-schema parameters is the one piece that does not clearly earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the route-matching model an agent needs to form valid origin/destination values, but its mention of search_mode/site_wide_active parameters absent from the schema leaves a small unresolved ambiguity.

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%, so origin/destination/service are already documented with patterns and examples. The description contributes path-construction examples (/flights/THR-MHD, /trains/tehran-mashhad), but it also discusses search_mode and site_wide_active, which appear nowhere in the input schema, muddying rather than clarifying parameter meaning.

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 resource (MrBilit's site notices) and enumerates what they cover (disruptions, rule changes, payment options) plus the scoping axis (service or route). It is clearly a retrieval tool distinct from the search siblings, though it never states the retrieval verb explicitly.

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?

'Use before recommending a trip, alongside the search tools' gives a concrete when-to-use and points to the sibling family. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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