Ride status

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description's main job is to add context — and it does, enumerating exactly what comes back (driver, car, plate, driver location, ETAs) and disclosing the default-to-active-ride fallback. It stops short of describing staleness, polling behavior, or the error case when no ride is active, which is why it is not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the returned payload front-loaded and the defaulting behavior second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is doing real work and covers the essentials for a single-ride read. The remaining gap is that it doesn't route the agent to wait_for_ride_update for repeated polling, a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single ride_id parameter is fully documented in-schema as "Omit to use the current active ride." The description's default statement simply restates that, adding no new semantics such as accepted ID formats.

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 uses a specific verb ("Shows") and names the resource plus the exact payload: status, driver, car, plate, location and ETAs. That clearly separates it from list_rides or request_ride, but it never names a sibling such as wait_for_ride_update or list_scheduled_rides, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

"Defaults to the active ride" implies the common case (a one-shot status check without an ID), which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus wait_for_ride_update for polling, nor any exclusion for historical or scheduled rides, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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