Query Public Transit / Transport

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the underlying data sources and the unavailability of CA coverage, but says nothing about return format, data recency, pagination, or any auth/rate constraints an agent would need to set expectations.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then bullets the country coverage compactly. The bulleted fragments read slightly telegraphically but waste no words.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema query tool, the description covers scope, sourcing, country handling, and a coverage gap (CA). What remains missing is how results are returned, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the auto-detection rule and the ambiguous-city caveat. The description largely restates that same auto-detection behavior, adding little semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (public transit/transport data) and breaks it down by source and country (NTD ridership, DfT road/bus/rail), which lets an agent distinguish this from siblings like query_traffic or query_city_data. It stops short of naming an alternative tool directly, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives useful operational context – country auto-detected, CA not yet available, and that ambiguous city names require the country parameter. However, it never says when to choose this tool over query_traffic or search_uk_datasets, so usage selection remains implied rather than explicit.

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