transportConfigurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the configurations are scoped to the organizer desk and include their ids, plus the relationship to transportsByConfig. No contradiction exists.

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?

One sentence with no filler; every clause contributes either the resource scope, the returned content, or the relationship to a sibling tool. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the scope, and the consumer tool that needs the ids. The annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed to understand the simple return content.

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?

The tool has zero parametershare, so the schema fully covers parameters and the description does not need to explain any. The no-parameter baseline applies.

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 identifies the resource (transport configurations in the organizer) and distinguishes this tool from transportsByConfig by noting it provides the ids that transportsByConfig consumes. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb action such as 'list' or 'retrieve', so it is not quite 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?

Use is implied through the note that this is what transportsByConfig takes, giving an agent a hint about when it is useful. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over createTransport, getTransportConfiguration, setTransportsConfig, or other transport-related siblings, nor any exclusions.

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