get_station_accessibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the upstream source (data.sbb.ch platform dataset) and the shape of returned fields, but says nothing about behavior when a station has no accessibility record or when the name does not match.

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?

Two short sentences: the payload first, provenance second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant content 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with a fully documented three-parameter schema and no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the data source, which is largely sufficient. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (unknown station, empty results) and matching semantics.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description goes slightly beyond by clarifying that 'rail-free' means step-free access, which frames what the station lookup yields. It adds nothing about limit or contains, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates the returned attributes ('platform number, length, type, and whether access is rail-free'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_station_passengers or get_station_punctuality, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether to resolve the station name via search_stations first, or how this differs from other station-level tools.

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