scheduling_get_route_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (route details, stations, departures), which is useful for a read operation. However, it does not state side effects, permissions, or response format, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys essential information with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and what to expect (stations and departures). It could mention that the route ID must be valid, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for route_id ('The ID of the route'). The description does not add much beyond this, merely restating 'by route ID'. Since the schema already covers the parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'route details' and clarifies the scope via 'including stations and departures' and 'by route ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool scheduling_list_routes, which lists routes rather than details of a specific one.

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 phrase 'by route ID' implies the tool is used when you already have a route ID and need detailed information, while list_routes would be used to discover routes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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