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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the main behavioral filters: only live, verified couriers with upcoming departures are returned, while demos, unverified accounts, and past departures are excluded. It does not mention limit behavior or empty-result handling, but the disclosed filter set is meaningfully useful.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core resource and add a single high-value exclusion sentence. There is no redundant prose or repetition of schema information.

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 tool is simple and the description covers its main filtering behavior, but without an output schema or annotations it leaves ambiguity around whether origin/destination are expected together despite being listed as optional. It also never states a default or cap for limit; more guidance would make it fully self-contained.

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 schema already describes from_date, origin_country, and destination_country (75% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra meaning about how these parameters form the corridor or what limit controls, leaving that to the schema.

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 identifies a concrete resource and scope: live, verified couriers with upcoming trips on a corridor. The exclusion of demo accounts, unverified couriers, and past departures sharpens the definition and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_courier, which targets one courier.

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 exclusion criteria imply this tool is for finding real, bookable courier options for a corridor, but no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that get_courier or get_routes would be used for different tasks.

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