Estimate Ride

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool resolves locations into route metrics and dynamic fares, and mentions pickup ETAs. However, it does not disclose whether this operation mutates state, requires authentication, has side effects, or how location resolution handles ambiguous addresses. It also doesn't clarify whether the estimate is binding or merely informational.

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 one focused sentence, front-loaded with the core action and output. It names all key outputs and ride types without paddding. It could be slightly clearer about parameter formats, but it is concise and scannable.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what is computed. However, it omits important context like the return value shape, whether surge pricing is included in 'dynamic fares', whether pickup ETAs are per ride type, and how to distinguish this from the related get_price_estimate and get_ride_options tools. It is minimally adequate for an agent to get a basic idea, but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It names 'pickup' and 'destination' as concepts and says they are 'resolved', implying both accept locations. It also adds that the output covers Moto, Auto, Go, Premier, and XL. However, it does not explain the acceptable formats, such as object vs string, or that both coordinate and address forms are supported. The schema has rich detail, but the description adds only moderate semantic value.

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 strong verb 'Resolve' and names the exact resource: pickup and destination into route distance, duration, pickup ETAs, and dynamic fares across five ride types. It clearly distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like book_ride, request_ride, select_ride, and get_price_estimate.

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 implies this is an estimation/pre-booking tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus get_price_estimate, get_ride_options, or select_ride. It gives context ('resolve... into route distance, duration, pickup ETAs, and dynamic fares') but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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