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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses that both completed and cancelled rides are returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature explicitly, sorting, pagination, or potential errors, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 concise, with two short sentences that state the purpose and what is returned. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by stating the return includes recent completed and cancelled rides. It could mention ordering or the effect of the limit, but the schema covers the limit, making the description adequately complete.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'limit' parameter with a default and maximum, so the description need not add more. The description does not reference the parameter, but schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for adequate semantics.

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 tool gets the user's past ride history, distinguishing it from siblings like get_current_ride. The verb 'Get' and resource 'ride history' are explicit, and the mention of 'past' and 'recent completed and cancelled rides' adds specificity.

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 implies usage for retrieving past ride history but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling context shows distinction from get_current_ride, but no direct exclusions are provided, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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