Track Driver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Return') but does not disclose whether an active ride is required, whether data is real-time, or any error/edge-case behavior. Basic transparency is present, but richer context is missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with a comma-separated list of returned fields. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the return payload by listing all key fields. It lacks any usage-context details, but those are partly captured in other dimensions; overall the picture is close to 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 input schema describes rideId as 'Ride ID returned by request_ride', achieving 100% parameter coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the schema already does the heavy lifting; 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and clearly enumerates the resource scope: driver coordinates, pickup, destination, progress, ETA, and current ride status. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_driver_location or get_ride_status by signaling a comprehensive tracking snapshot rather than a single-purpose lookup.

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 usage for tracking a driver mid-ride but never explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_driver_location or get_ride_status. Given many ride-related siblings, explicit routing guidance would have been valuable; without it, the agent must infer the use case.

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