nol_card_guide

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or lack of mutations. Adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the obvious.

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 with no filler. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then enumerates what is returned. Every sentence adds value. Highly concise.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (card types and fare structure with specific rates). It covers the key details for an agent to invoke correctly, though could mention that the output also includes daily caps, transfer rules, and passes. Nearly 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% for the single parameter 'card_type', with description 'Optional card type filter substring.' The tool description does not add any additional semantics about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states it returns '5 Nol card types' and '2025 fare structure', with specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'Nol card guide and RTA fare structure'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rta_salik_tariff which focus on specific tariffs, not comprehensive guide.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for general Nol card information, but does not mention alternatives like rta_salik_tariff for tolls or rta_search_bus_routes for routes. Usage context is implicit, not explicit.

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