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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. What it genuinely adds is above the annotation baseline: deterministic ordering ('newest first'), the return envelope {items, total, has_more}, and the note that driver_id takes a driver PROFILE id rather than a user id — a real correctness guard.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the verb, resource and ordering, followed by the read-only note and the filter catalogue. Every clause carries information; the day-to-day cost is that the filter list runs long in one sentence, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 10-parameter, all-optional filter tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ordering, filter meaning and the return shape, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only pagination defaults and authorization requirements are left to the schema and annotations.

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 has to compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the status enum values, explains what 'q' matches (trip number, TTN number, route points), covers the date_from/date_to window, and disambiguates driver_id. Gaps remain for limit/offset pagination semantics and for what the id parameters concretely reference beyond driver_id.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the workspace's trips') and defines the domain entity inline ('one truck run executing a freight order'), plus default ordering ('newest first'). Scope is qualified as 'workspace's', which implicitly separates it from the sibling logistics_list_my_trips, but the contrast is never stated outright.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: the list of filters tells an agent what the tool is for, and the 'workspace's' wording hints at the my-trips alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as logistics_list_my_trips or logistics_get_trip for single-record lookups.

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