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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses the access window, the 403 behavior outside it, and the approximately 10-second coordinate refresh cadence. These are meaningful behavioral constraints an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 returned data, then adds the access window and endpoint in compact form. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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, but the description enumerates the returned driver fields and explains the main availability constraint and failure mode. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and how to interpret a 403.

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 order_id and driver_id are already well documented in the schema. The description only refers to them via the endpoint path and does not add format or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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/resource combination: fetching the driver of an order, with the returned fields named explicitly (name, phone, masked plate, photo, coordinates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_order and track_order without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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?

It gives clear operating context: the driver data is only shared from one hour before pickup or arrival until completion, and outside that window the API returns 403. It does not explicitly say when to prefer track_order or get_order instead, so it is strong context but not full alternative routing.

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