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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by asserting the quote is authoritative and from the website's pricing engine, and it warns against local price recomputation. However, it does not describe the response format, quote validity, or any side effects, though for a quote tool those gaps are moderate.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical input decision and the most important guardrail. Every sentence 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation choices and directs the agent to trust the returned quote. Required origin/destination fields and optional date fields are covered by the schema. Explicit comparison with estimate_customs or get_services and a description of the returned quote shape would make it fully complete, but nothing critical blocks correct invocation.

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 already strong at 75%, and the description adds meaningful semantics by mapping weight_kg to boxes/suitcases and items[] to catalogue goods. This either/or guidance is not present in the schema. The city parameters are still left to inference, but they are straightforward.

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 identifies the tool as an authoritative price quote for Europe ↔ Africa shipments, generated by the same pricing engine as the website. This distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_customs or get_services and makes its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: use weight_kg for boxes/suitcases or items[] for catalogue goods, and never manually recalculate prices. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the purpose and input guidance are strong enough for correct selection.

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