Get a driver

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that contact fields are gated behind include_contact_details — but says nothing about errors, permissions, or what happens with an unknown ID beyond what the schema implies.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the returned-field list is front-loaded and the conditional-contact caveat follows naturally. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and the conditional contact-detail rule is stated. It stops short of describing error behavior or the driver_id format nuances, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the include_contact_details effect. The description restates that effect in different terms (email/phone/start-end address) without adding syntax or edge cases, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 names the resource (a single driver) and enumerates the returned fields (name, active status, depots, route overrides), which implicitly distinguishes it from list_drivers and get_route. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve', but the singular 'One driver' clearly signals a single-record fetch versus a listing.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular framing suggests fetching one known driver rather than browsing, but no alternative (e.g., list_drivers for enumeration) is named and no precondition is stated. Adequate for a simple read but leaves routing to sibling tools to inference.

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