12306-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explains what information is returned (stations, arrival/departure times, dwell times) but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. The first sentence clearly states what the tool does, and the second provides usage context. There's no unnecessary information or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and basic usage but doesn't address parameter meanings, return format, error conditions, or other contextual details needed for effective tool invocation. The description should compensate more for the lack of structured documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (trainCode, departDate, format) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or explain their meaning, format, or constraints. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented, which is inadequate given the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: '查询特定列车车次在指定区间内的途径车站、到站时间、出发时间及停留时间等详细经停信息' (Query detailed stop information including stations, arrival times, departure times, and dwell times for a specific train within a specified interval). It specifies the verb (query) and resource (train route stations with detailed timing information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-tickets' or 'get-interline-tickets', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance: '当用户询问某趟具体列车的经停站时使用此接口' (Use this interface when users ask about the stops of a specific train). This gives a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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