pup_list_transportations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful domain context about the returned rules and ordering guidance, but it does not disclose additional operational behaviors such as pagination, response size, or handling of inactive options beyond what the schema parameter indicates.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose, enumerates the returned rule categories, and includes a practical directive. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description explains what the agent will learn from the tool and when to call it. It could slightly improve by noting the include_inactive behavior or response shape, but these are not critical gaps given the schema and annotations.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 identifies the resource (dismissal/transportation options for a school) and the kind of operation (listing/reading available options and their rules). It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like pup_list_students or pup_list_plans without opening the schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Read this before setting a plan.' This provides actionable context for planning workflows and implies it should precede plan-modifying operations, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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