ride_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or return shape. 'Raw active-ride status' reveals no behavioral trait an agent could rely on.

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?

The phrase is short but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose because there is essentially no content to front-load.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a crowded ride_* sibling namespace, the description is far too sparse for an agent to call this correctly.

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. The description does not mention the token or its role, so an agent must guess from the parameter name alone. Baseline for 0 params would be 4, but this tool has 1 undocumented param.

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 'Raw active-ride status' is a terse noun phrase with no verb. It vaguely indicates the resource (active ride status) but does not clarify what the tool does — read? stream? return? — and provides no distinction from siblings like ride_track or ride_history.

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?

No guidance on when or why to use this tool versus siblings such as ride_track, ride_history, or ride_boarded. The word 'raw' hints at unprocessed data but never explains when that matters.

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