12306-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what rate limits apply, what format the results come in, or any error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient communication. Every word earns its place, but more words are needed.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error handling, or any behavioral characteristics. For a data query tool with multiple filtering and sorting options, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters (7 optional), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'trainFilterFlags', 'sortFlag', 'format', or other parameters mean, their expected values, or how they affect the query. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 '查询12306余票信息' (Query 12306 ticket availability information) states the basic purpose (querying ticket availability from 12306) but is vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify what kind of tickets (train tickets implied by 12306), what information is returned, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get-interline-tickets'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over 'get-interline-tickets', or any context about appropriate use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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