GraceRoad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds useful content boundaries (cargo/vehicles, no prices) and hints at output structure ('a page for each'), but doesn't go much deeper.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by optional-filter guidance and a useful exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the content returned and the filtering option. 'A page for each' is slightly vague, but not enough to block 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'filtre' parameter. The description adds helpful examples like 'Mali', 'Bamako', and 'Abidjan', but this reinforces rather than substantially extends 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 names a specific resource ('road corridors GraceRoad serves'), a concrete action ('Lists'), and the content included ('typical cargo and vehicles'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like graceroad_preparer_demande and graceroad_presentation.

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 context for use: enumerate corridors, optionally filter by country or city, and it explicitly notes the result 'Contains no prices.' It doesn't name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, 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.

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'This tool creates nothing and charges nothing.' It adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: link generation, user self-submission, paid/free status for each service, and a mandatory user-facing disclosure. This fully discloses the tool's side effects and operational traits.

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 description is a single dense paragraph with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then logically expands into service-specific variations and constraints. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the structure makes it easy to scan for key warnings.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and two enums, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the primary result (link), user interaction, cost implications, and what the tool does not do. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating the return type upfront. An agent calling this tool has all necessary operational context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to the 'service' parameter by explaining the real-world consequences of each enum value (payment, link behavior, fee quotation). This goes beyond the schema's plain enum labels and helps the agent choose the correct value and set user expectations.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Prepares a request to GraceRoad and returns a link for the user.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on request preparation and link generation, while also enumerating service types. An agent can tell this apart from graceroad_corridors and graceroad_presentation without ambiguity.

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 provides clear usage context, explaining what happens for each service type ('transport', 'carburant', 'sourcing') and when payment conditions apply. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use this when...', but the detailed service-specific behavior gives strong implied guidance. The warning to tell the user the amount before giving the link is a concrete usage directive.

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. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond this: the transport request form is paid and the agent must relay the fee notice, and GraceRoad publishes no transport prices so the agent must never estimate one. These are significant constraints not present in the annotations.

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 description is four sentences, each earning its place: the first defines content, the second gives ordering, and the last two give essential behavioral constraints. It front-loads the most important information without any 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to call it, fee-related behavior, and pricing constraints. Nothing an agent needs for correct invocation is missing.

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 only parameter 'langue' is fully documented with enum and default. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the full meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it 'Describes GraceRoad' with a detailed list of services, countries served, service requests, and fees. The phrase 'Call this first' differentiates it as the introductory tool among siblings, making 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?

The description gives an explicit ordering directive ('Call this first') and provides procedural guidance about relaying the paid form fee notice and never estimating transport prices. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state conditions for choosing them instead, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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