Price a ride for later

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts — the returned price is a range, a scheduling fee may be added, and no booking is created. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. what happens when the requested time falls outside the allowed window), which keeps it off 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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the constraint, then the routing to schedule_ride. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding or restatement of the title.

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 usefully characterizes the return value as a price range plus a possible fee, and it warns that nothing is booked. For a read-only four-parameter quoting tool that is close to complete; only error/edge-case behavior for invalid times is unaddressed.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no per-parameter detail beyond that baseline. Its only added semantic value is the constraint that `time` must be a today/tomorrow 5-minute slot, which meaningfully narrows a free-form ISO string.

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 and resource — "Prices a ride booked ahead for a given time" — which unambiguously separates it from get_ride_quotes (immediate pricing) and schedule_ride (actual booking) among the siblings. The scope (ahead-of-time pricing only) is clear from the first clause alone.

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?

Gives an explicit next step and boundary: "Books nothing; call schedule_ride after the user agrees," which tells the agent this is a pre-commitment quote step. It also encodes a hard domain constraint (today/tomorrow, 5-minute slots). It stops short of naming get_ride_quotes as the alternative for an immediate ride, so the when-not is only implied.

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