station_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that data is live and includes return fields, and that station name is auto-resolved. However, it does not specify behavior when both station_id and station_name are provided, error handling, or any side effects (though it is clearly read-only). This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence and a parameter list. It is reasonably concise, though some redundancy exists between the opening guidance and the parameter details. It remains easy to scan and front-loads the core purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description covers all essential usage aspects: station identification, board type, and result count. It could be more complete by addressing ambiguity (e.g., what if both station_id and station_name are given) or error cases, but overall it is solid for a read-only 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?

The schema provides zero description for parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter with examples and default behavior. It clarifies board_type values, station_id format, and max_journeys semantics, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool fetches live departures or arrivals at an OeBB station, with a specific verb (fetch) and resource (station board). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_station and trip_search by focusing on real-time station-level data.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (live departures/arrivals) and explains how to specify the station via ID or name. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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