Active 99 ride status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds that only status, ETA, and category are returned and that no ride ID is required. It does not disclose behavior like missing-ride responses or how privacy_mode affects output, but the annotation coverage is sufficient to keep this at a mid score.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the relationship to 'track' and the key distinction, then states the limited output scope. Every word earns its place.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no descriptions for privacy_mode or response_format, the definition is incomplete. The reference to 'same as track' is underspecified because the sibling tool's description is not part of this definition, and there is no guidance on defaults, error cases, or no-active-ride handling.

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. It clarifies that ride_id is not required, which is useful, but it completely omits any explanation of privacy_mode or response_format, both of which have enum values an agent would need to understand.

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 indicates this tool provides status, ETA, and category for the active 99 ride, and contrasts it with 'track' by not requiring a ride ID. It differentiates from the sibling ninenine_track_ride, though 'same as track' relies on the reader already understanding what track does.

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?

It explicitly names 'track' as the analogous tool and states the key usage distinction: no ride ID is needed. This helps an agent choose between this and ninenine_track_ride, but it does not discuss other alternatives or edge cases such as what happens when no active ride exists.

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