nol_card_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine content scope (which card types and which fare components are returned, with concrete 2025 values), which is behaviorally useful beyond 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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the returned content. The parenthetical fare enumeration is dense but every element is informative, not padding.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return formatting, and it does describe the content scope well. The only gap is the absence of any mention of the optional card_type filter or usage context, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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% and the single optional card_type filter is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions the filter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific resource (Nol card guide + RTA fare structure) and enumerates exactly what it returns (5 card types, 2025 zone fares, caps, transfer rules, passes). It is clearly distinguishable from transport siblings like rta_salik_tariff and rta_search_metro_stations, though it does not explicitly name them.

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, when-not, or alternative guidance. An agent must infer that this is a static reference lookup for Nol fares rather than something like rta_salik_tariff; the description offers no routing information.

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