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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The safety sentence largely restates the closed-world hint, though it does add that lookups are limited to the authenticated user's accessible trips. Behavior on a missing or unauthorized id is not disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no wasted framing. The second sentence is mostly a restatement of the closed-world annotation, which slightly dilutes the value of the brevity.

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 two-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The main residual gap, the paired trip_id/subresource-id constraint, is minor for this complexity level.

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 both id and trip_id are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that, e.g. that the subresource id must belong to the given trip, or what happens if they mismatch.

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?

"Fetch one Tripsy transportation by id" names a specific verb (fetch), resource (transportation), and cardinality (one, by id), which separates it from tripsy_transportations_list. It stops short of naming the sibling or stating what a transportation record contains.

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: the agent must infer it should call this when it already holds a transportation id and needs full details rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tripsy_transportations_list.

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