get_stationboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns live data with times, platforms, destinations, and delays. However, it does not mention any potential rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects, though the tool is read-only and safe.

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 concise: a brief intro, bullet-pointed use cases, and a summary sentence. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous text.

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 5 parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and return format. It lacks details on error handling or constraints (e.g., valid stations), but is adequate for the tool's purpose.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains transport_types filtering and implies mode via 'departures/arrivals', but does not explicitly describe station, limit, or datetime parameters, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 checks departures/arrivals at Swiss stations with specific use cases. It uses a strong verb ('Check') and resource ('stationboard'), and the sibling tools (plan_journey, search_locations, get_booking_link) are distinct, so differentiation is clear.

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 explicit use cases in bullet points, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternatives like plan_journey for journey planning, leaving a slight gap.

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