pass_catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the catalogue is 'current' and enumerates the kinds of data returned (products, prices, allowances, validity), which is useful but modest additional context beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and its scope with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is unnecessary here, and the safety profile comes from annotations. The definition is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, with the city_id input format the only notable omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for city_id; it only implies a city scope via 'for a city' and gives no format, ID source, or whether an integer city identifier is expected. This is a real gap for the single required parameter.

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 ('Return') and a concrete resource set (RidePass products, prices, allowances, validity) scoped to a single city. It is clearly distinguishable from owned_passes in substance, but never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With siblings such as owned_passes and recommend_ridepass covering adjacent territory, an agent gets no help deciding between browsing the catalogue, viewing owned passes, or requesting a recommendation.

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