GraceRoad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful boundary ('Contains no prices') and hints that each corridor has a page, but says nothing about pagination or result size.

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 first front-loads what is listed, the second covers the filter and the 'no prices' caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 a read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to select and call it. Only deeper return-shape detail (e.g. how many pages) is absent, which is minor here.

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% with a single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Country or city to filter on' by giving concrete example values ('Mali', 'Bamako', 'Abidjan'), which clarifies accepted input format.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('West African road corridors GraceRoad serves') plus the accompanying data (typical cargo and vehicles, a page per corridor). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (request preparation, presentation), though it does not explicitly name them.

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 explains how the optional filter works ('a country or city name') but never states when to use this tool versus the siblings graceroad_preparer_demande or graceroad_presentation. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description goes well beyond them: it clarifies the link is opened and sent by the user, that transport carries a study fee distinct from the transport price, and names the response fields ('avis_frais', 'a_dire_a_l_utilisateur'). The closing 'creates nothing and charges nothing' directly confirms and enriches the safety profile.

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 core action and return value are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by per-service fee behavior and a closing safety statement. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or redundancy.

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 a request-preparation tool with 8 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the fee implications per service and the names of the fields returned. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and set expectations for the user.

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 sits at 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying the 'service' enum values to fee consequences and by surfacing the response fields that carry the fee information. The remaining parameters (date, depart, arrivee, quantite) receive no elaboration beyond their schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Prepares a request to GraceRoad and returns a link for the user'), which is inherently distinct from the informational siblings graceroad_corridors and graceroad_presentation. It never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains the outcome and cost profile for each service value ('transport' carries a study fee, 'carburant' offer is free, 'sourcing' enquiry free with fixed fee after), which helps an agent pick the right service. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against the sibling tools or any exclusions, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that a study fee applies when a transport request is submitted, and that GraceRoad publishes no transport prices, which pre-empts a plausible agent expectation.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource identity before the enumeration of contents, and ending with the key constraint about pricing. All content earns its place, though the long parenthetical service list is slightly heavy.

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 must convey what an agent gets back, and it does so by enumerating services, countries, request process, and fee structure. The lack of explicit sibling routing is the only real gap for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'langue' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Describes') and resource (GraceRoad / GRACECORP AMD GROUP SAS) and enumerates the content it returns: services, countries, request process, and fees. It is clearly distinguishable from graceroad_preparer_demande by being the informational overview, though it never names the siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the orientation/company-info tool to call before requesting a service, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to graceroad_corridors / graceroad_preparer_demande.

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