transportReference

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context by explaining that the tool concerns 'the object behind one entry of a request,' but it does not disclose what a caller gets back, especially since there is no output schema. This is adequate given the safe annotations, but not rich.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core idea. It is concise and without filler, though slightly terse for a tool with four parameters and no output schema.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and a purely conceptual description, the definition is incomplete for invocation purposes. An agent is left uncertain about what the tool returns, how the parameters combine to identify the referenced object, and when this is the right tool to call.

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 100%, so each parameter (pgmid, obj_name, tr_number, obj_wbtype) already has a basic description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so it does not elevate the meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 conceptual purpose—'the object behind one entry of a request'—but it is phrased as a definition rather than an action. It does not state a verb such as 'resolves' or 'returns', so an agent must infer that the tool likely looks up or describes the target of a transport reference. It is not a tautology, but it also does not clearly differentiate itself from siblings like transportInfo or transportDetails.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transportInfo, transportDetails, or transportsByConfig. No context, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided; the description only implies a conceptual connection to transport references without stating a concrete use case.

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