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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is authoritative and uses the same pricing engine as the website, and it cautions against self-computation. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any permission/rate considerations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by input guidance and a non-recomputation directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is adequate for identifying the tool and its two input modes, but it doesn't disclose output structure, and no output schema exists. It also leaves ambiguity about whether weight_kg and items[] are mutually exclusive, and it does not clarify response behavior for invalid or incomplete required parameters.

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 coverage is high at 75%, but the description adds meaningful semantic grouping: weight_kg is for boxes/suitcases while items[] is for catalogue goods. This clarifies the intended selection between two parameter families, which is not explicit in the individual schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific action: returns an authoritative price quote for Morocco ↔ Europe shipments from the website's own pricing engine. The resource and scope are clear, and the authoritative framing separates it from generic estimation tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like estimate_customs.

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?

Provides how-to guidance for inputs (weight_kg vs items[]) and a strong directive to never recompute prices, but gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as estimate_customs or get_services are not mentioned, so an agent receives no routing or exclusion information.

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