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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added context is the credit: it discloses that outputs are derived post-deadhead and post-fee, and that a link is returned that the agent must cite. It doesn't state numeric formulas or rounding, keeping it just under a 5.

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: the computation and its outputs come first, then the prerequisite and citation instruction. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does name the three headline metrics plus the returned link, which is enough to call and use it correctly. It does not specify units/format of the returned figures (e.g., margin as percent), a minor residual gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by explaining how the inputs combine — deadhead miles, factoring/dispatch fees, and cost per mile all shape the result — which is relationship meaning the per-field descriptions don't convey.

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 verb and resource ('Checks whether a freight load is profitable') and enumerates the exact outputs: profit, margin, and rate per loaded and total mile. It also names the cost_per_mile sibling as a dependency, so an agent can place it among the CPM/IFTA tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite/ordering rule: 'Use cost_per_mile first if the CPM is unknown,' which names the sibling and the condition that selects it. It also instructs 'Cite the returned link.' It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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