transportReference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise at just three words ('Retrieves a transport reference'), with no wasted verbiage. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose, making it structurally efficient despite its informational shortcomings.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'transport reference' is, what the return value looks like, or how it relates to other transport tools in the sibling list. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to understand its role and output.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented in the input schema (e.g., 'pgmid' as 'The program ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Retrieves a transport reference' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'transportReference'. It doesn't specify what a transport reference is, what resource it retrieves from, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'transportInfo' or 'transportConfigurations'. While it includes a verb ('retrieves'), it lacks specificity about the domain or purpose beyond the name itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'transportInfo', 'transportConfigurations', and 'createTransport', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it should be selected over those options. The description is completely silent on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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