GeoArm Taxi — Tbilisi ⇄ Yerevan rides

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the booking is only a request, unconfirmed until a dispatcher contacts the passenger, and payment is cash to the driver. The annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. What is not disclosed is the duplicate-submission consequence of idempotentHint=false (calling twice likely creates two bookings).

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?

Front-loads the action and the key caveat (a request, NOT confirmed), then prerequisites, payment, and return payload in short clauses. No wasted sentences despite the density of information.

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 16-parameter mutation with 9 required fields, the description supplies the sourcing rules, the confirmation caveat, the payment model, and the hand-off token. An output schema exists, so the brief return-value listing is a bonus rather than a necessity.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every field; the description adds cross-reference meaning by telling the agent that point, time, car and currency come from get_prices_and_schedule values. It does not add format or validation detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the coverage baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sends a booking request for a ride between Tbilisi and Yerevan') plus the scope variants (a seat, or a whole vehicle). The sibling names get_booking_status and get_prices_and_schedule are used functionally, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: source point/time/car/currency from get_prices_and_schedule, use the passenger's real name and phone, and obtain the passenger's yes to the price first. It also names the downstream sibling (get_booking_status via status_token), covering both when to call and what follows.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond them: the meaning of each returned state (not present in the schema, which has zero enums) and the privacy guarantee that no personal data is returned.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its state vocabulary, then the prerequisite token, then the privacy note. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no elaboration, and the description covers the two things the schema cannot: the semantics of each status value and the data-protection guarantee. An agent has everything needed to call it 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% for the single parameter and the schema already says 'The status_token from create_booking'. The description repeats that same provenance with no additional format, length, or sourcing nuance, so this is the baseline case where structured data does the work.

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?

States a specific resource ('the state of a booking request') and explicitly ties it to the create_booking lifecycle, enumerating the four possible states (received, confirmed, completed, cancelled). An agent can distinguish this read-only status lookup from create_booking and get_prices_and_schedule without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly implies the usage context: this is the follow-up call to create_booking, and it requires the status_token that create_booking returned. It provides a clear when-to-use signal but never names an alternative tool or states an explicit exclusion, so it stops short of the top band.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: the data is a 'live' offer, implying dynamic pricing/freshness rather than a cached static list, which matters for a pricing tool. It does not mention output shape, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the identity of the tool before the inventory of returned fields, and every clause is an informative item rather than filler. The long semicolon list makes it dense but not padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers identity, scope, returned content, and workflow placement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to know when to prefer it over its siblings.

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% and the single enum parameter already documents tbs-evn/evn-tbs and the both-directions default. The description reinforces 'per direction' departure times but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific resource set (live GeoArm Taxi offer for the Tbilisi–Yerevan route) and enumerates exactly what is returned: currencies, per-car-type seats and prices, departure points with ids, departure times per direction, and key facts. An agent can distinguish this read-only pricing tool from create_booking and get_booking_status without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Read it before create_booking,' which names the sibling and the sequencing condition. It does not state when not to call it or how it differs from get_booking_status, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

With annotations only declaring write/open-world/non-idempotent, the description carries real added context: PII redaction (e-mail addresses, phone numbers and @handles are removed), human review with no publication or execution, and a rate limit of at most 5 notes per address per day. This is exactly the kind of operational detail the annotations do not supply.

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 optionality and the preconditions are front-loaded, and each following sentence adds a distinct constraint (content, PII, review policy, rate limit). Slightly dense but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the 8 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description supplies the remaining operational context (privacy handling, human review, quota) needed to invoke this tool responsibly.

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% across all 8 parameters, so the schema already documents each field and its limits. The description reinforces the no-personal-data rule and the general content expected, but adds no field-level syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('tell GeoArm Taxi... what worked, what was missing and whether you would recommend it'), which maps directly to the tool name leave_feedback. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings create_booking, get_booking_status and get_prices_and_schedule, which are booking/price operations rather than a feedback submission.

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 states the trigger condition clearly ('after you have read this site or booked a ride') and an explicit gate ('Optional, and only if your user and your own rules allow it'). No sibling tool is named as an alternative, but none of the siblings is a substitute for submitting feedback, so the routing gap is minor.

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