Logistic ID

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool queries real-time data and returns costs/estimates, and underscores the need for valid IDs. However, it does not describe error behavior, whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or what happens if invalid IDs are supplied, which are relevant behavioral 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second delivers a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the structure makes the dependency clear immediately.

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 has 3 parameters, no enums, no output schema, and only moderate complexity, the description covers the essential context: the tool's function and a mandatory prerequisite for parameter preparation. It does not describe the response format in detail, but the mention of 'shipping costs and estimate delivery dates' gives a sufficient expectation of the output for an agent. There's minor room for improvement, such as noting typical failure modes or response shape.

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 input schema fully describes the three parameters with types and descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly linking 'origin_area_id' and 'destination_area_id' to the 'get_map_areas' tool, clarifying that these are not arbitrary strings but must be obtained from that companion tool.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Query real-time shipping costs and estimate delivery dates') on a well-defined resource ('across Indonesian shipping couriers'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_map_areas' by referencing it as a prerequisite, making the tool's role 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?

Provides an explicit, critical usage instruction: the agent MUST obtain valid origin and destination area IDs using 'get_map_areas' before calling this tool. This is clear context and a direct reference to an alternative/companion tool, but it does not explicitly state when *not* to use this tool or mention other alternatives beyond the prerequisite.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns about the critical input format and the prohibition on combining levels, which helps the agent understand the tool's strict requirements. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential errors.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clearly structured critical instructions. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does and how the input must be formatted. It does not explain the return values in detail, but the phrase 'administrative area IDs' implies the output, making the description sufficiently complete for this simple 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?

The schema already describes the single 'input' parameter as a subdistrict/district name or postal code (100% coverage). The description adds value by providing examples ('Setia Budi', 'Arcamanik'), explicitly specifying the 5-digit postal code format, and emphasizing the critical rule against combining multiple levels.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Query Indonesian administrative area IDs for shipping calculations.' It specifies a distinct resource (area IDs) and purpose, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_courier_rates and usage_statistic.

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 explicit usage constraints: search using only a single subdistrict/district name or 5-digit postal code, and explicitly instructs not to combine multiple levels. This gives clear context on how to use the tool, though it does not mention any alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the constraint.

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 present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately indicates a read-only retrieval operation and specifies the data returned, but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential delays, or any edge cases. For a simple read-only tool, the core behavior is transparent, but richer context would improve the score.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and the data included. It contains no redundant words, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool returns (requests used and remaining), which is sufficient for the use case. No additional information is necessary for a complete understanding.

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 with 100% coverage. The description appropriately avoids adding parameter information since none exist. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no deduction is warranted.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the exact resource: the current user's API rate limits, including requests used and remaining. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (get_courier_rates, get_map_areas), which target different domains.

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 the tool is for checking current API consumption, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when to prefer an alternative. Since the sibling tools are unrelated, the usage context is clear, but no direct guidance or exclusionary language is provided.

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