ride_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only.' merely restates structured data rather than adding to it. The only novel behavioral content is the 'completed ride' scope restriction; nothing is disclosed about failure modes for an unknown/invalid ID.

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 very short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero padding. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 values need not be described, and the operation is simple (one required param, read-only, idempotent). The definition is nearly sufficient for correct invocation; only ID sourcing/format is unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is named 'use_id', which is opaque on its own, so the description does useful work by clarifying it is a ride ID. It still gives no format, example, or source for that ID, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Fetch detail for one completed ride ID'), and the word 'completed' implicitly separates it from the sibling current_ride. However, it never names or contrasts with the near-neighbours ride_summary, list_rides, or ride_route, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'One completed ride ID' scopes usage implicitly (not for in-progress rides, one ride at a time), which rules out current_ride by inference. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, so the routing decision is left partly to the agent.

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