Request Ride

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating action (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds that demo mode uses a shared deterministic demo store and live mode uses Uber when authorized, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects such as driver dispatch, fare charges, or cancellation implications, which matter for a booking tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the demo/live mode behavior is the next most important piece of information for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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 multi-parameter, nested-object, mutating tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what a successful response contains, how errors surface, whether payment is required, how scheduling works, or what authorization prerequisites beyond 'when authorized' are needed. The deterministic demo-store behavior is mentioned but not explained in terms of constraints.

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 only 43%, and the description adds little parameter detail beyond naming pickup and destination. Riders, category, scheduledAt, paymentMethodId, and riderNote are not explained in the description, and some of these (riders, category) have no schema-level description either, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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 states the specific verb 'Book' and the resource ('a ride from a pickup location to a destination'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool book_ride, which appears to serve a very similar purpose, but it does add the demo/live mode distinction that helps an agent understand what environment this call operates in.

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 explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as book_ride, select_ride, or estimate_ride. The demo/live mode note is useful environmental context, but it does not tell the agent when this tool is the right one, what prerequisites exist, or that other ride-related flows should be considered first.

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