Get Trip Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'completed trip' constraint and lists the returned financial fields, but it does not mention error behavior, what happens for incomplete or cancelled trips, or any auth requirements. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 immediately states the action, the resource, and the expected contents. There is no filler, and the key scoping information ('completed trip') is included upfront.

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 lookup with one documented parameter, the description provides enough context: it states what the receipt contains and that it applies only to completed trips. It does not explain output formatting or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, the definition is sufficiently 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 describes the only parameter (tripId) completely as 'Trip ID returned by trip history', so with 100% schema description coverage the description does not need to add parameter detail. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning, 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 ('Get') and resource ('trip receipt'), and enumerates the exact contents: fare line items, taxes, tip, total, and currency. It also restricts scope to 'completed trip', which clarifies intent, though it does not explicitly contrast with closely related sibling tools like get_ride_receipt or get_fare_breakdown.

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 phrase 'for a completed trip' provides clear contextual guidance that this tool is only appropriate after a trip is finished. However, there is no explicit direction about when to choose this over similar siblings like get_fare_breakdown or get_ride_receipt, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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