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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for added context is lower. The description still adds substantial behavior beyond those annotations: quote_id is valid for 30 minutes, status values are enumerated, resolved pickup/destination should be shown to the customer, and ambiguous_place requires re-prompting with a postcode.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core function and read-only safety. There is minor redundancy — 'Returns' opens two sentences and 'read-only' restates an annotation — but every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: quote validity, status values, how to present resolved addresses, and how to handle ambiguous places. It does not explain what to do for manual_quote_required or not_offered, though those states are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It offers little input-side guidance beyond hinting that a postcode resolves ambiguity, while large_suitcases, flight_number, special_requirements, and passenger constraints remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('RIED.TAXI's current price for one journey'), and identifies the backend as the only valid price source. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from booking or reserving, which separates it from sibling tools like ried_taxi_create_booking and ried_taxi_hold_booking.

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 read-only framing and 'never books or reserves anything' make it clear this tool is for price lookup, not booking. It also gives a concrete conditional instruction for ambiguous_place — ask the customer and resend with the postcode — though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to use them.

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