Risk verdict for a carrier by USDOT number for insurance underwriting / shipper vetting: out-of-service rate vs national average, inspection history, FMCSA rating, authority status, flags. A transparent triage signal from public FMCSA data, not a guarantee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dot | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the data source (public FMCSA data) and explicitly states the output is 'not a guarantee'. It implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, which is adequate for a risk assessment tool.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with key information. Every part adds value: the purpose, the data elements, the source, and the disclaimer. No unnecessary words.
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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description provides complete context: what it does, what data it uses, and what it returns. No gaps remain for an agent to use it correctly.
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 only parameter, dot, is a USDOT number. The description mentions 'by USDOT number', adding meaning to the otherwise unadorned schema (0% coverage). This clarification is sufficient for correct usage.
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 tool provides a risk verdict for a carrier using USDOT number, listing specific data points (out-of-service rate, inspection history, FMCSA rating, authority status, flags). It distinguishes its purpose for insurance underwriting/shipper vetting, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like carrier_risk_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?
The description specifies the use case (insurance underwriting / shipper vetting) but does not provide guidance on when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but carrier_risk_lookup and safety_screen are nearly identical risk screening tools, and new_authority_feed and new_carriers are explicitly aliases, creating redundancy that could confuse an agent.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: most use snake_case but pattern varies (noun_verb, verb_noun, noun_noun), and new_authority_feed mixes camelCase. No consistent verb_noun pattern.
9 tools is well-scoped for a freight intelligence server, covering lookup, risk, search, chameleon detection, and switch signals without being overwhelming.
The tool surface covers core workflows: carrier lookup, risk screening, chameleon checks, new carrier leads, search, and factor switch detection. Minor gap: no direct tool for individual inspection details, but those are embedded in risk screens.