List drivers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that email, phone and start/end address are suppressed by default and only surfaced via include_contact_details — a PII exposure trait not visible in the annotations.

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 compact sentences, no boilerplate, with the return contents front-loaded and the conditional PII caveat immediately after. 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 usefully enumerates the returned shape and the conditional PII fields. Pagination and filtering behavior live in the 100%-covered schema, so the only omission is any hint that results are paged at all.

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 the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds the opt-in semantics for include_contact_details — that those fields are returned *only* with the flag — which sharpens the schema's plain field list into a default-behavior statement.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Drivers on the team") followed by the exact payload it returns: active status, depots, route overrides. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_driver, so it falls short of the 5 bar that requires naming the alternative.

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 through the include_contact_details conditional. There is no statement of when to call this instead of get_driver, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, so the agent must infer routing from the conventional list/get naming.

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