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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses that optional operational attributes (GPS, rail, operator, capacity) are null unless separately certified, and explains the payment requirement ($0.02/call) and 402 response if not paid. This rich behavioral detail fully leverages the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, payment, and response shape. However, the point about optional attributes being null is repeated in both the second and fourth paragraphs, creating minor redundancy. Overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema, the description helpfully explains the return shape: 'certified code/name/type and null for unsupported optional attributes'. It also covers payment edge cases. While it doesn't mention pagination or list vs. single response, the existing response shape reference is enough for this context.

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% and every parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb 'Search' and names the specific resource: 'India's current official ICEGATE Inland Container Depot (ICD) and Container Freight Station (CFS) directory'. It also states search criteria (code, name, type), fully differentiating it from sibling tools like shippingrates_cfs_tariffs or shippingrates_inland_search.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to resolve an official ICEGATE ICD/CFS code or facility name', giving clear direction on when to invoke. It also sets expectations that unsupported attributes remain null, preventing misuse for GPS/rail data. It doesn't name specific alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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