transportDetails

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 meaningful behavioral detail: objects come back as a flat list, raw=true switches to the unfiltered ADT structure, and both tasks and objects are included by default.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is stated briefly, and the raw flag behavior is included without redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does a good job summarizing what is returned and the key mode switch. It could more explicitly cover edge cases like invalid transport numbers or the exact shape of the ADT structure, but the essential calling context is present.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly tying raw=true to the ADT structure and mentioning the flat-list representation, which clarifies the behavior of a parameter beyond its schema description.

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 clearly states what the tool returns — the header, tasks, and objects of one transport request — and frames it as the answer to 'what does this request change'. It is specific about the resource and content, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling transportInfo tool.

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 description gives a clear use case ('this is the answer to what does this request change') and even names an alternative approach (SELECT on E071 through runQuery). It does not provide exhaustive when-not-to-use guidance relative to other transport-related siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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