pup_list_transportations

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

The description adds domain context about the returned data (rules for each dismissal option) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, and reinforces that it's a read operation by advising to read it before a plan-setting write. No contradictions; it doesn't disclose every behavioral detail, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence packs the essential content (what the list contains and the rule fields), and the second sentence gives actionable usage guidance. Very efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned and the domain. It could be slightly more explicit that it returns a list, but the name and plural phrasing imply it. Combined with the annotated read-only behavior and parameter descriptions, an agent can call it correctly without missing critical information.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions (school_id from pup_list_students, include_inactive with default false). The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the 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 states the tool lists dismissal options a school offers, with specific rule attributes (note required, car number, early dismissal, cutoff time). This clearly identifies the resource and differentiates it from siblings like pup_list_plans or pup_list_car_numbers.

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 'Read this before setting a plan' provides clear context and a prerequisite for using pup_set_plan. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls just 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.