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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: FMCSA authority/insurance is 'live' and only 'when available', the phone comes from a public record, and only the three newest dated reviews are returned. These are behavioral/data-quality caveats the annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating caching, rate limits, or failure behavior for an unknown slug.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed immediately by the usage trigger, and every listed field carries information. The middle enumeration is long and comma-spliced, which makes it denser than it needs to be, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so item by item including conditional fields ('when available'). Combined with the annotations and complete schema coverage for the single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 slug parameter is already documented in the schema, including its provenance from find_movers and its derivation from a haulest.com/movers/... URL. The description mentions the profile URL in the return payload but adds no syntax or format guidance for the slug itself, so this is the baseline 3.

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 ('One moving company in detail from its Haulest profile') and then enumerates the exact payload: ratings, reviews, USDOT/MC licence IDs, FMCSA authority and insurance, phone, prices paid, strengths, and profile URL. This is clearly differentiated from the sibling find_movers, which discovers rather than retrieves one company.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use it after find_movers or when someone names a company that has a Haulest page.' Both the triggering condition and the upstream sibling are named, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is the right pick versus discovery or licence-check tools. No exclusions are stated, but the positive routing is unambiguous.

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