Japan Direct Trucks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the estimate is planning-only rather than a binding quote, it is derived from Freightos public LCL as a container index, Brent crude for bunker, and Joint War Committee listed areas, and certain countries are refused outright. It does not state whether the result is a range, its precision, or any latency/caching behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then sourcing, then the disclaimer, then the refusal list. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

The behavioral side is reasonably covered, but for a 5-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the caller guessing about mode, vehicleClass, and what the returned estimate looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 20% (just countryCode), and the description does not explain any parameter. 'Japan load port' loosely maps to the origin enum and 'destination' to countryCode/port, but mode and vehicleClass — both enum-typed and central to an estimate — are entirely undocumented in either place.

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 — producing a planning ocean-freight estimate from a Japan load port to a destination — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling (get_import_guide, list_destinations, get_vehicle, etc.). It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, but the domain is narrow enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 provides a clear exclusion ('Not a booking quote') and a hard restriction ('Iran and Russia are refused'), which tells the agent when this tool is inappropriate. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead for an actual booking quote, so the when-not is stated without a when-instead.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. Calling the content 'public facts' usefully implies a read-only, unauthenticated lookup with no side effects, but it does not confirm this explicitly or mention staleness, caching, or response characteristics.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the three content categories are packed into a colon-delimited list and no sentence is wasted.

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 needs to convey the return content, and it does so at a high level by naming contact details, product offerings, and payment mechanics. For a zero-parameter static info tool this is nearly sufficient, though slightly more specificity on scope would help.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no param info because none is needed.

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 resource (company facts) and enumerates three content domains: contact info, product lineup, and payment process. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling info-lookup tools like get_import_guide, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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 — the agent can guess this is for general company background questions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a sibling like get_import_guide or list_news would be preferable, and no prerequisites noted. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content (ports, guide URL, export process, freight calculator), which implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about permissions, freshness, or failure modes for an unknown country code.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the code hint, and neither sentence is padding. 'Official-style' is slightly vague, but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free lookup with no output schema, the description usefully substitutes for an output schema by listing what comes back. Only the read-only nature and unknown-code behavior are left implicit.

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% and the single countryCode parameter is already documented with ISO examples. The description's GB/BE note mostly restates the schema's own examples, adding only a light popularity hint, so the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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 (import notes for a destination) and enumerates its content: ports, country guide URL, export process, and freight calculator. That is far more concrete than the bare name, though it never names a sibling tool to distinguish itself from estimate_shipping or list_destinations.

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 sentence about GB and BE is guidance on which country codes buyers use most, not on when this tool should be chosen over siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition, so usage remains implied.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the 'available' filter qualifier, but says nothing about behavior when the id is not found or the vehicle is unavailable, nor about auth requirements, rate limits, or what a returned record contains.

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?

One short sentence with the core verb and accepted identifier forms front-loaded; nothing is padded or redundant. It is efficient, though it spends its brevity on restating schema content rather than adding new context.

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 single-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves the agent without any sense of the returned vehicle shape or failure behavior. It is minimally sufficient to invoke, not complete.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Vehicle id or source_id / stock number'). The description restates the same dual nature (numeric id vs stock/source id) without adding format, validation, or precedence details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (one available vehicle) plus the two accepted identifier forms. It implicitly separates itself from search_vehicles by promising a single record rather than a result set, though it never names that sibling.

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: the phrase 'one available vehicle' suggests this is a lookup for an id you already have rather than a discovery call. No alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, even though search_vehicles is the obvious routing alternative.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers almost nothing behavioral: no statement that this is a read-only, parameterless lookup, no indication of return shape, ordering, or pagination. Its only extra context is that two countries are high-traffic, which does not help an agent call the tool correctly.

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 short sentences with the core resource identified first. The trailing sentence about UK/Belgium is marginally relevant context but leans toward 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 zero-param, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description should at least say what a returned item looks like (country name vs. code/slug) since downstream tools likely consume those identifiers. It conveys the conceptual content but leaves the return contract unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 the exact resource (destination countries with ports and corridors) that the tool enumerates, so an agent knows what it will get back. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_import_guide or estimate_shipping, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The note that the UK and Belgium are the highest-traffic pages is informational trivia rather than usage guidance.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no pagination behavior, no default for 'limit', no return shape, no freshness or ordering of headlines, no auth requirements. The topical category list (freight, fuel, canals, customs, war risk) is the only substantive content added.

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 compact sentences with the domain content front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned economy.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the description leaves too many gaps: what 'limit' controls, what the default is, how results are returned, and whether 'country' filters or merely annotates. It is not complete enough for reliable 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 50%; 'country' is already documented in the schema as an ISO code and the description merely repeats that ('Optional ISO country code'). The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the domain (shipping-affecting headlines covering freight, fuel, canals, customs, war risk) but never states the operation itself — the name 'list_news' implies listing, while the phrase 'Import and export headlines' reads as if the tool moves headlines around rather than returns them. An agent can infer the subject matter but not what action is performed.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Since no sibling covers news, there is no routing risk, but the description gives the agent nothing to decide with beyond the topic labels.

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 are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results come from live inventory and include a customer yen price plus public URL, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, rate limits, or whether it is strictly read-only.

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 with no filler, front-loading what the tool searches over before stating the return values. Efficient, though slightly light on structure for eight parameters.

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, stating the returned fields (yen price, public URL) is necessary and is done. No annotations exist and the parameter coverage gap is the main omission, but for a read-only search the description is close to complete.

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 38%, so several of the eight parameters (minYear, maxYear, minMileageKm, maxMileageKm) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The listed body types loosely echo the category enum, but no filter syntax, units, or defaults are added beyond what the schema already states.

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 (search) and a clearly bounded resource (live Japan Direct Trucks inventory), and enumerates the covered body types. It contrasts reasonably with get_vehicle by framing itself as a search over live inventory, though it never names a sibling 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?

The description implies a browse/filter use case by calling the inventory 'live', which suggests freshness-based selection, but it gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never says when to prefer get_vehicle for a specific listing instead.

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