ride_place_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and fails to meet it. It never states whether a token is required for auth, whether the list is user-scoped, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what happens with an invalid token.

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?

Three words are front-loaded and waste nothing, so structure is not the problem. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, and a one-line description for a tool with auth semantics leaves too much unsaid.

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?

Even for a simple list endpoint with one optional parameter and no output schema, the absence of annotations means the description should cover auth expectations and result shape. It covers neither, leaving the agent with only the name to work from.

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 single 'token' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no meaning about what the token is or whether it is optional (required count is 0, which is itself surprising for an auth token).

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List saved places'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the adjacent siblings ride_place and ride_place_add, leaving an agent to guess how listing differs from fetching a single place or adding one.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative named. The sibling set contains ride_place and ride_place_add, which are the obvious alternatives, yet the description offers no routing signal.

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