Station Board: Departures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds value by detailing the nature of data (real-time delays, cancellations, disruptions) and reaffirming 'Read-only'. This goes beyond annotations but could still mention rate limits or data freshness.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action + scope, coverage details, prerequisite. No wasted words, and the most important information (live departures) is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, the required input, and how to obtain it. No significant gaps remain.

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% and already explains the 'eva' parameter well. The description adds useful context by referencing get_city_resource as the source for the EVA number, which aids in parameter preparation. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the action ('Get live departures'), resource ('ANY railway station by its EVA number'), and scope ('all train categories ... with real-time delays, cancellations and disruption messages'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on departures and specifying coverage, though not explicitly differentiating from station_board_arrivals.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (live departures for any station) and a prerequisite (get EVA from get_city_resource). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for arrivals) or reference to alternatives like station_board_arrivals.

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