Entur: reiseforslag mellom to punkter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does list some output aspects (legs, transfers, travel time) and cites data source/license. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, possible errors, or the structure of the response.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy; the function is front-loaded, and the license/source note is compact and separately structured. Every sentence earns 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical details such as parameter units, the meaning of 'antall', and the response format. The coverage of required parameters is minimal and does not fully compensate for the lack of structured information.

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 0%, and the description only refers to 'koordinat til koordinat', leaving the four coordinate parameters to be inferred from their names. The optional 'antall' parameter is entirely unexplained, despite having min/max 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 states a specific function: travel planning between coordinates, including legs, transfers, and travel time. The verb 'reiseplanlegger' and resource specification effectively distinguish it from sibling tools like stop and departure lookups.

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 implies usage when a travel itinerary between two coordinates is needed, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tools are named.

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