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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool checks (live records plus internal layers) and what it returns (triage verdict and specific flags). It does not mention side effects (e.g., external API calls) or permissions, but the behavioral impact is well-explained.

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 coherent sentence front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return details and use case. The closing demo sentence adds mild redundancy but does not waste space. Highly structured and readable.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the returned flags and verdict, providing essential context for interpreting results. The use case is clarified. Missing details like synchronous behavior or rate limits, but overall sufficient for the tool's modest complexity.

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 single parameter 'carriers' is fully described in the schema with coverage 100%, and the tool description adds specific identifier types (USDOT numbers and/or MC/docket numbers), enhancing understanding beyond the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Re-grade', the resource (list of carriers), and the specific data sources (FMCSA/L&I, switch-signal, chameleon layers). It also lists return flags and the target use case (factoring companies vetting lead lists), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like carrier_lookup (single carrier) or chameleon_check (single check).

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 description explicitly ties usage to 'factoring companies vetting their own lead list,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools for single carrier lookups or other risk assessments, relying on the tool name and sibling list to imply differentiation.

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