getPlannedTimetable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The agent cannot assess safety or cost of invocation.

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 two sentences in German, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a secondary sentence on usage context. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the core information: what data is fetched and for what purpose. Minor gaps include lack of output format hints and comparison with siblings, but it is largely sufficient for an agent.

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 clear descriptions and examples for each parameter (date, hour, evaNo). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Holt die geplanten Fahrplandaten') and the resource (planned timetable data for a station, date, and hour). It differentiates from siblings by highlighting 'planned' nature, contrasting with 'current' or 'recent changes'.

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 explicitly states it is useful for planning ahead and getting future train info, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly exclude use when real-time data is needed or name alternatives like 'getCurrentTimetable'.

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