get_constraints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of indicating side effects. The word 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'all hard and soft constraints' defines the scope. However, it does not disclose output format, error behavior, or what happens if the trip_id does not exist, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes essential meaning.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It identifies the resource and action clearly, but it omits any mention of return shape or edge-case behavior. Given the low complexity, this is close to complete.

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 for trip_id provides type, format, and pattern but no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds some semantic context by linking the trip_id to 'a trip' whose constraints are read, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's role or behavior for invalid IDs. For a single obvious parameter, this is adequate but minimal.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('all hard and soft constraints attached to a trip'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_trip, get_trip_context, and get_trip_audit. The scope is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_trip_context or get_trip_audit. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of a better alternative for related needs, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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