Get Ride Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the main safety behavior. The description adds modest behavioral context with 'latest' status, implying freshness, but does not describe invalid rideId handling, data staleness, or whether this reflects a live feed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentence that lists the key data points and is immediately understandable. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description combined with the schema is largely sufficient. It names the output aspects an agent might care about, but with many sibling ride tools and no output schema, it could improve by clarifying how it differs from get_ride_details or mentioning error/empty-status behavior.

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 has 100% coverage for the single rideId parameter, including the useful note that it is 'returned by request_ride'. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing the ride, so the schema carries the semantic load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('ride'), and the data returned: status, route, driver assignment, ETA, and fare estimate. It is not a tautology and an agent can understand the tool's core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from closely named siblings like get_ride_details 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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ride_details, get_fare_breakdown, or track_driver. The word 'latest' implies current ride state, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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