ride_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The only added behavioral signal is the 'completed ride' scope constraint, which usefully implies the tool fails or is meaningless for in-progress rides.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence ('Read-only') is redundant against the annotations rather than earning 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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with an undocumented required parameter and no guidance on sourcing order_id, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent that must actually call it.

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% and the single required parameter order_id has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The agent gets no hint about where order_id comes from or its format, and the description does not compensate for this 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('linked order/charge detail for a completed ride'), which distinguishes it from ride_detail, ride_summary, and ride_route by focusing on order/charge linkage. It does not name a sibling to route against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for a completed ride' implies the precondition (the ride must be finished) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to alternatives like ride_detail or list_rides for obtaining the order_id. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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