Live ride

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful empty-state contract ('state alone when there is none'), but most of its length re-enumerates return fields that the existing output schema already documents.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key fact ('current ride, if any') followed by the payload and the empty-state note. The long field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it reads as a scannable inventory rather than padding.

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?

With zero params, full annotation coverage, and an output schema present, the description only needs to convey purpose and non-obvious behavior — both are covered. The only real gap is routing clarity versus the trip-history and general-status siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly presents this as a no-argument call.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: the rider's *current* ride, with an enumerated payload (status, driver, car, plate, PIN, ETA, fare, cancellability, stops). The word 'current' implicitly separates it from past-trip siblings like uber_trips/uber_trip, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 qualifier 'if any' plus 'state alone when there is none' tells the agent what to expect when no ride is active, which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over uber_status, uber_trip, or uber_trips — the boundary with those siblings must be guessed.

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