ride_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, auth requirements (the token parameter hints at auth but this is not stated), ordering, or what the response contains. Two words cannot convey the behavior of a paged history endpoint.

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?

Extreme brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no waste because there is almost no content, but the definition fails to front-load any useful information an agent needs to invoke the tool.

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?

A paginated, token-bearing list endpoint with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs substantial description to be usable. 'Past rides' leaves every operational detail missing.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The agent must guess what page, limit, and token do, including whether token is required for authorization.

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 phrase 'Past rides' is essentially a restatement of the tool name ride_history rather than a specific verb+resource statement. It gives a rough sense of the domain but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ride_status, ride_track, or ride_debts, leaving the agent to infer that this returns historical ride records.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many ride_* siblings, no mention of prerequisites, authentication context, or exclusions. Nothing in the text helps an agent choose it over ride_status or ride_track.

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