request_ride

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: the tool is non-committal by default and only books when confirm=true. However, it omits other important behaviors such as prerequisites (logged in, pickup/destination set) or potential outcomes (e.g., ride availability, charges).

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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately clarifies the critical confirm behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the rich sibling context (login, set_pickup, set_destination), the description omits important contextual details like requiring a logged-in session or having a pickup/destination set. It also does not describe what the confirmation preview includes. While the schema covers parameters, the description leaves gaps in operational completeness.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters fully (confirm and ride_type) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the confirm behavior in prose, so it does not significantly enhance the schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema_description_coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('Lyft ride'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the preview vs. confirmed booking behavior. This makes it unambiguous what the tool does and how it differs from related tools like get_fare_estimate or cancel_ride.

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?

The description explicitly explains the two usage modes: returns a confirmation preview by default, and requires confirm=true to actually book. This provides clear context for how to safely use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., first set pickup/destination using sibling tools).

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