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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the return envelope {items, total, has_more} and an important domain nuance: each row carries 'userId' (the cabinet login a trip is assigned to) and a driver without one can still be put on a trip — real behavioral context an agent could not get from annotations.

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?

It is a compact block that front-loads what is listed and its fields, then filters, then the return shape. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the userId aside is slightly parenthetical but earns its place by preventing a real misuse.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return envelope and the key per-row field, which covers what an agent needs to consume results. Combined with annotation coverage of the safety profile, the only omissions are pagination conventions and explicit sibling routing, which are modest for a read-only list tool.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of five parameters: 'q' is defined as name/phone/licence search, 'status' values are restated with meaning, and 'carrier_id' is identified as a filter. The pagination parameters limit/offset are left to the schema, which is a minor gap given the standard semantics and the has_more hint.

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 ('List driver profiles') and enumerates the returned fields (name, phone, licence, status, carrier, default vehicle). The list verb plus the field enumeration clearly distinguishes it from siblings like logistics_create_driver or logistics_update_driver without needing to name them.

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 gives filtering conditions ('Filter by status, carrier_id or q') and labels the tool read-only, which implies when to reach for it. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives such as logistics_list_fleet or logistics_get_trip, and offers no exclusion guidance, leaving selection partly to inference.

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