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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns out-of-service rate vs national average, inspection history, etc. Mentions 'Honest-null with a 'no roadside inspection history' flag for brand-new carriers' and states it's a transparent triage signal, not a guarantee. This covers edge cases and limitations.

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?

Description is well-structured with the purpose upfront and details following. It is concise for the information provided, though a few phrases (e.g., 'A transparent triage signal...') could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: return values, edge cases, usage domain, and limitations. The alias mention ties it to sibling tools. No gaps are evident.

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 already describes the sole parameter 'dot' as 'USDOT number.' The description only confirms 'by USDOT number,' adding no extra semantic value (format, length, examples). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: risk-screening one carrier by USDOT number for insurance underwriting/factoring vetting. It lists specific outputs (out-of-service rate, inspection history, FMCSA rating, authority+insurance status, flags) and mentions it's an alias of safety_screen, distinguishing it from sibling tools like carrier_lookup.

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?

Description specifies the domain (insurance underwriting/factoring vetting) and advises verifying against SAFER for underwriting decisions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like chameleon_check or switch_signal, though the alias with safety_screen implies interchangeability.

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