ReadTransportObjects

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does flag the read-only nature and a non-obvious behavioral rule (request-addressed removals are refused; entries live on tasks). However it says nothing about result size, pagination, or the cost of the 'full'/'raw' detail modes beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only marker and the core verb, and every sentence is load-bearing. The request-vs-task point is stated twice (description and again via the param doc), which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 names the key returned field (`position`) and the task-vs-request entry model, which is what an agent needs to chain into RemoveTransportObject. It stops short of describing the entry shape beyond `position`.

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 100% and both parameters (transport_number, detail enum) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the request-vs-task distinction. The description largely restates that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List the objects a transport request or task holds') with the added detail that each entry carries the `position` field RemoveTransportObject consumes. This cleanly separates it from ListTransports, AddTransportObject, and RemoveTransportObject, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: read a REQUEST to find WHICH task holds an object, read a TASK to get entries that can actually be acted on, and warns that a removal addressed at the request is refused. This is when-to-use plus a named downstream tool and a failure condition.

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