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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'great-circle distance', which hints that estimates are straight-line approximations — mildly useful, but it never states units, currency, whether pricing is live or synthetic, or that it is a non-binding estimate.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is truncated with an ellipsis, leaving the payload incomplete rather than tight. Brevity here comes at the cost of information, not from editing.

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?

Five parameters, a nested object, an enum, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema — a heavy burden that the description does not carry. An agent cannot infer required units, the from/listing exclusivity rule, or what the returned estimate contains.

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% across five parameters, with a nested 'from' object that has no schema at all. The description's parenthetical '(or a point)' is the only clue that listing and from are alternatives, but kg, mode defaults, and the from/to shapes are left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific resource (road, sea and air shipping estimates) and the endpoints of the calculation (a listing or a point, to a place). It clearly reads as a distance-based quote/estimate tool, distinguishable from listing_* or ship_update siblings, though the sentence trails off mid-thought.

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?

No indication of when to prefer this over ship_update, listing_get, or the other estimate/quote siblings. There is no statement of preconditions, cost, or result interpretation.

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