get_approach_for_station

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it filters out routes without recent activity, sorts by proximity, and includes a URL. This goes beyond basic functionality and helps an agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then providing clear details about filtering and sorting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 a simple parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what is filtered, sorting order, and the inclusion of a URL. It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% with a clear parameter description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's existing description, so it meets the baseline without extra value.

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 it gets real-time bus approach information for all routes at a station, distinguishing it from siblings like get_approach_for_route (specific route) and get_timetable (timetable). The verb 'Get' and resource 'approach for station' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use (to get approach info for all routes at a station) and what the output contains. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for agents to infer from sibling names.

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