Find IRCTC railway retiring rooms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the absence of live availability, the requirement of a Confirmed or RAC PNR on the IRCTC portal for booking, and the presence of booking rules and indicative price ranges in the result.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the return contents, then the limitation. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 six optional parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete and even pre-empts the availability limitation. It is slightly redundant in enumerating return fields that the output schema already defines, but nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema by framing the two input modes - 'at a station code' versus 'within a radius of a place' - which helps an agent understand that station_code and the place/lat/lng/iata+radius_km path are alternative lookup strategies, not something the schema 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 and resource (lists Indian Railways stations with IRCTC retiring rooms) and clarifies the scope with a parenthetical definition of what a retiring room is. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like search_hotels or get_hotel_rates, which cover commercial lodging rather than station-embedded railway accommodation.

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?

Gives clear context for use (lookup by station code or by place/radius) and explicitly states a when-not: live availability and exact prices are not available here and require a Confirmed or RAC PNR on the IRCTC portal. It does not name a sibling alternative to use instead, but the exclusion is explicit.

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