get_next_driver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm (search Preferred then Global Pool), the capacity matching constraint, and the return payload (driver & full vehicle contact info). It does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects, but the 'Get' verb implies read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys the search order, the capacity matching, and the return information without 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, search order, constraints, and return contents. It is complete enough for an agent to decide to call the tool and to understand what outcome to expect. A slight gap is that 'next best' is not fully defined beyond pool order and capacity, but the overall context is solid.

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 already fully documents the single parameter 'booking_id' with a clear description. The tool description adds marginal value beyond this, just reiterating that a booking is involved. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 states the tool gets the next best available driver for a booking, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_available_drivers or get_driver_details by focusing on booking-driven driver selection with a defined search order (Preferred then Global Pool).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a driver needs to be allocated to a booking. It explains the search order and capacity matching, giving enough context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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