Track a ClickBus booking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful scope ('Status only', no GPS polylines or passenger documents), which is genuinely informative, but it does not go into deeper behavior like response format semantics or authorization needs.

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 short sentences deliver the core behavioral constraint immediately and add only one clarifying exclusion. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for rapid scanning by an agent.

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?

The description is too thin for a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation. It does not explain what statuses are returned, how privacy_mode affects output, or what response_format changes, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond guessing from names and enums.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it provides nothing about booking_id, privacy_mode, or response_format. The agent is left with only the schema's field names and enum values, which is insufficient guidance.

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 action and resource: tracking a ClickBus booking. 'Status only' pinpoints the specific output scope and explicitly separates it from a broader 'tracking' interpretation (GPS polylines or passenger documents), distinguishing it from sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 implies this tool is for getting booking status, and it explicitly excludes certain data types, which provides some guidance on when not to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or give explicit conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like clickbus_booking_history or clickbus_connection_status.

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