SYMONE motorcycle transport

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are filtered to cities where SYMONE actually operates, but says nothing about how 'near' is defined, result ordering, or size limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose; the second sentence slightly restates 'nearby cities' while adding the operator context, but overall there is no wasted text.

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-only lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient; only the notion of proximity and expected result shape are left unexplained, and no output schema exists to cover the latter.

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 parameter already documents accepted formats with examples ('Paris', 'Île-de-France'). The description's 'city or region name' phrase adds no new semantic detail, 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: find SYMONE-served cities near a location, and clarifies SYMONE is a motorcycle transport operator. Distinct from siblings get_booking_url and search_routes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with 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?

Usage is only implied by 'Pass a city or region name' — the agent can infer this is a coverage-lookup step, but there's no explicit statement of when to call this vs. search_routes or of prerequisites/exclusions.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: booking and payment happen on symone.fr only, and reservation contacts are returned, clarifying that the tool itself does not complete 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses three tight sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds useful information: the two use cases, the route_id effect, and the external booking boundary.

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 adequately explains what is returned: the booking link, reservation contacts, and optional repeated trip details. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers the key behavioral boundary that booking and payment occur externally on symone.fr.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the need enum. The description reinforces the route_id source and notes that trip details are repeated next to the link, but adds little parameter-level 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: get the link to book a scheduled SYMONE trip or request a quote. It also distinguishes the two use cases via the need enum and names the source of route_id, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly explains when to use each mode: scheduled_trip for a trip listed by search_routes, and quote for a route or date that is not listed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or contrast it with sibling tools beyond the search_routes dependency.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuine context beyond them: paginated results with next_cursor, booking URL included, and no authentication required — the last being particularly useful for an agent planning a call sequence.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, then return shape, then auth. The 'Primary route: Paris–Marseille from 299€' sentence is the only one that reads as marketing rather than operational guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (dates, prices, slots, next_cursor, booking URL). Combined with the auth note and schema-level pagination detail, an agent has enough to invoke and paginate 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (page, limit, cursor, depart, arrival, date_from, date_to) is already documented in the schema. The description names the same filter concepts without adding syntax or edge cases, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search available motorcycle transport routes in France') and lists the filter dimensions. It doesn't explicitly name the siblings cities_near or get_booking_url, though mentioning that the booking URL is returned implicitly separates it from get_booking_url.

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 the filters and a scope (France) but offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance or alternatives. Sibling routing (e.g. use cities_near for location discovery) is left to inference.

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