Get Ride Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent what data is returned but does not state whether the call is read-only, what happens for an invalid or past rideId, or whether 'current' means only active rides. This ambiguity could mislead an agent into using it incorrectly.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before listing the returned fields. There is no unnecessary content or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple one-parameter get-by-id tool, the description covers the primary return payload, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it leaves 'current' ambiguous relative to the rideId parameter, does not explain error behavior, and offers no routing to sibling tools, so the overall context is only moderately 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 coverage is 100%: the rideId parameter has a clear description ('Ride ID returned by request_ride'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond implying that the rideId identifies the ride record, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and resource ('complete current ride record') and enumerates key fields (route, fare, driver, vehicle, ETA, status), making its purpose clear. It implies this is the comprehensive ride lookup tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_ride_status or get_trip_details.

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 about when to choose get_ride_details over alternative tools such as get_ride_status, get_fare_breakdown, or get_trip_details. The phrase 'complete current ride record' weakly suggests using it for full details, but no explicit conditions or alternatives are given.

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