Entur: neste avganger fra et stoppested

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output composition (line, direction, platform, schedule vs. expectation, cancellations), the data source (Entur, all Norwegian operators), and the license (NLOD 2.0). It does not cover edge cases such as empty results or timezone handling, which prevents a 5.

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 exceptionally concise: two short, information-dense segments. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the source/license line provides useful context without unnecessary padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents and context well. It omits details like result ordering or behavior when no departures exist, but these are minor gaps for a simple two-parameter departure-list 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 input schema already describes stoppestedId as 'NSR-id fra entur_stoppested', and antall has type/min/max constraints. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, and with 50% schema coverage it does not compensate for the unexplained 'antall' behavior beyond what can be inferred from the name and constraints.

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 identifies the tool as a real-time departure board ('Sanntids avgangstavle') and enumerates the specific return fields: line, direction, platform, scheduled vs. expected time, and cancellation status. This distinguishes it from siblings like entur_stoppested (stop lookup) and entur_reise (journey planning).

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 title and opening line make the intended use explicit: next departures from a stop, with real-time updates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over entur_reise or entur_stoppested.

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