Search the new-authority carrier set by state, fleet size, since-date, has-email, forHire, financeable verdict (GO/WAIT/NO), and insured. Returns pre-qualified, lead-ready carrier rows. For an arbitrary DOT use carrier_lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| forHire | No | ||
| insured | No | ||
| hasEmail | No | ||
| financeable | No | ||
| maxPowerUnits | No | ||
| minPowerUnits | No |
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 states the tool returns pre-qualified, lead-ready rows and lists filters, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, performance characteristics, rate limits, or permissions. The description gives a reasonable overview but lacks depth.
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 concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence lists filters, the second explains the output and provides a key alternative. Every word earns its place.
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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is quite terse. It vaguely describes return value as 'pre-qualified, lead-ready carrier rows' without specifying structure, pagination, or ordering. While it provides a helpful sibling distinction, it could be more complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of most parameters conceptually (e.g., state, fleet size, since-date, has-email, forHire, financeable with valid values, insured), but does not cover 'limit' or specify formats for 'since' and 'state'. It adds value but is not fully comprehensive.
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 searches the 'new-authority carrier set' with specific filters and returns pre-qualified rows. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'carrier_lookup' by noting that arbitrary DOT searches should use that tool instead.
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 provides an alternative for arbitrary DOT searches ('For an arbitrary DOT use carrier_lookup'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool would be inappropriate beyond that.
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.