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.