disruptions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (coverage area, why `path` is more reliable) but says nothing about pagination via `limit`, what happens when all filters are omitted, or how multiple filters combine.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then filtering options, then the path tip. Every sentence carries information, though the trailing parenthetical could be trimmed slightly.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. Still, for a nine-parameter, zero-optionality-required tool, the description leaves unit semantics, default behavior and filter-combination rules unspecified, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 0% for nine parameters, so the description must compensate and does so only for `path` (encoded polyline, sourced from plan_journey's leg_geometry) and loosely for lat/lon/radius, mode, operator and line. `limit`, `radius` units and `path_radius` remain unexplained in both places.

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?

It states a concrete verb+resource ('Planned works, incidents and line status') and enumerates the covered transport modes and geography. However, it never differentiates itself from adjacent service tools like train_service, bus_service or rail_departures, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance for the path-vs-line choice ('line numbers repeat across towns, so this is more reliable than `line`'), which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over siblings such as bus_service or live_buses, so the guidance is partial.

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