Create an open transport request

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: a repeated call creates a second request (reinforcing and explaining idempotentHint=false), the call is not retried automatically, it consumes a daily quota, and it requires the 'open_requests:write' API key scope. Open-world, quota, and non-idempotent semantics are all 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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the matching behavior, then the quota/retry/auth constraints in short sentences. Slightly redundant in restating the title verbatim as the first line, but otherwise tight with no wasted prose.

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 10-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers visibility, matching, quota, retry, and auth thoroughly. It does not indicate what the caller receives back (e.g., a request ID for later reference via open_requests_list_matches), which is the one remaining gap.

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% with 10 well-documented parameters including enums, examples, ranges, and time-window semantics, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline 3 case.

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+resource ('Create an open transport request') and then explains the mechanism: the request is posted so carriers on ESGO see it and it is matched against existing and future trips. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read tools (matches_search, open_requests_list_matches), which only surface matches rather than creating requests.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: the request is matched immediately against existing trips and continuously against new ones, and it counts against the daily 'open_requests_create' quota. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when-not-to-use this versus them, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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