Get Recent Rides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Return,' which implies a read, but it does not mention ordering, default limit behavior, whether status filters the results or only describes the returned statuses, or any other call characteristics. The agent is left guessing about how the tool actually behaves.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to scan quickly.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not state what happens when no status is provided, how recency is determined, how limit applies, or what the return shape looks like. An agent has enough to guess the purpose but not enough to invoke it confidently without additional assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter documentation gap, but it does not explain `limit` or `status` as parameters. The phrase 'completed and cancelled' hints at the status enum values, but it does not clarify that status is an optional filter or that limit defaults to 10 and caps at 50.

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 names the concrete resource ('most recent completed and cancelled rides' from 'the shared ride store'). This makes the basic action clear and distinguishes it from detail/receipt-focused siblings like get_trip_details and get_ride_receipt. It could be slightly more explicit about how it differs from list_trps, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool instead of list_trps, get_trip_details, or get_ride_status, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'most recent' implies a recency use case, but the description does not provide enough context to route an agent among the many ride-history sibling tools.

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