Get Fare Breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description supplies the main behavior: it returns fare line items and applies to completed demo rides. It does not disclose error behavior, whether the ride must be in a specific state, or what 'fare line items' includes; this is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and object with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description tells an agent what it returns and when it applies. However, with no output schema and no differentiation from receipt siblings, an agent may not know whether get_fare_breakdown, get_ride_receipt, or get_trip_receipt is correct, and 'demo ride' is left undefined.

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 input schema documents rideId fully, including that it is the ID returned by book_ride, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('detailed fare line items') and adds a scope ('completed demo ride') that separates it from pricing-estimate tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling receipt tools like get_ride_receipt or get_trip_receipt, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'for a completed demo ride' gives explicit context that this tool applies after a ride is finished. But there is no guidance about when not to use it or which sibling should be preferred, so usage versus alternatives remains mostly implicit.

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