Get a Waymo ride quote

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. It adds the behavioral distinction between an ASAP quote and a re-quote using a scheduling token. Still, it does not disclose whether quotes expire, whether they create a hold, or how live availability affects results.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Quote an ASAP route') followed by the secondary re-quote mode. Every word contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters and depends on prior search results (via result indices) and prior quotes (via scheduled_option_token), but the description does not mention these prerequisites or how they relate to sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but an agent is left to infer the workflow from parameter names and schema descriptions alone.

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 63%, and the description adds the important context that scheduling options come from a prior quote and that omitting the token means ASAP. It does not clarify the result-index parameters or the passengers field, leaving those to schema names and defaults, but it does not mislead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Quote') and resource ('a Waymo ride quote'), and clearly distinguishes two modes: ASAP quote versus re-quote with a scheduling option. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action and modes are unambiguous.

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 gives two clear usage scenarios (ASAP route or re-quote using a returned scheduling option) and implies the re-quote depends on a prior quote. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like waymo_search_places or waymo_book_ride, and no exclusions are provided.

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