stl_gtfs_late_night

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

The description states the query behavior (returning trips with cross-boundary stop times and the maximum departure time) and aligns with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction is present.

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 and follows a clear two-part structure: first defining the resource, then a brief Args section. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present.

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 description omits semantics for limit and snapshot, and while it mentions an output (trips plus max departure_time), it does not describe the return structure. More detail is needed for a caller to invoke the tool confidently without prior knowledge.

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?

Only the threshold parameter is explained in the description; limit and snapshot are present in the schema but have no description, and schema coverage is 0%. Since most parameters are undocumented, the description does not compensate.

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 resource (trips whose stop times cross the service-day boundary) and the distinct output (maximum departure_time in the feed), which helps separate it from the many stl_gtfs_* siblings.

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 provides a use case ('Use it to find edge-case test material') and explains the threshold filter, but it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like stl_gtfs_departures or stl_gtfs_query, leaving some when-to-use ambiguity.

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