AirCargoMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the chargeable-weight rule (max of gross versus volumetric) and that weight breaks plus fuel/security surcharges are applied, which is real context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe rate validity, currency, error behavior, or whether the quote is deterministic, so behavioral transparency remains partial.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key computation and surcharge behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a tool whose input schema is fully documented, and it explains the core rating behavior. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to describe the returned quote (per-kg versus total, currency, validity) and any failure conditions. An agent can call it, but cannot fully predict the response.

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 even without additional parameter detail. The description adds value by explaining how weight_kg and volume_cm3 interact through chargeable weight and by framing origin/destination as a lane. That semantic linkage goes beyond the field-level schema descriptions.

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: get an all-in per-kg air-freight rate quote for a lane. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (resolve_awb_prefix, track_awb), which handle AWB prefix resolution and tracking rather than rating. It could be slightly sharper about the quote's output form, but the purpose is 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?

The description implies a rating use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not say when volume should be supplied, whether quotes are lane-only versus shipment-specific, or what to do if a lane is unsupported. With no sibling quote alternative, the gap is mostly about preconditions rather than tool selection.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully states the returned fields (airline name, IATA code, tracking site), but it does not mention failure behavior for an unknown prefix, idempotency, or data source. For a simple resolver this is adequate, but it leaves meaningful operational details unstated.

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 two sentences and front-loads the action, input, and return fields. The analogy is brief and earns its place by clarifying the lookup pattern. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description explains the useful return values (airline name, IATA code, cargo tracking site), which compensates well for the missing output schema. The main gap is the absence of behavior for invalid or unknown prefixes. Otherwise it is complete enough for 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%, and the schema already defines the single 'prefix' parameter as a 3-digit AWB prefix with an example. The description repeats that it is a '3-digit IATA AWB prefix' but adds no format rules, validation notes, or examples beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema already documents parameters fully.

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 precise verb ('Resolve') and resource ('3-digit IATA AWB prefix') and specifies the resulting data: airline name, IATA code, and cargo tracking site. Its function is clearly distinct from the sibling tools air_rate_quote and track_awb, so an agent can identify it without inspecting the schema.

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 implied by the description: use it to map an AWB prefix to airline details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over track_awb or air_rate_quote, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The analogy to a container-prefix lookup provides context but not routing 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the return includes status, route, and milestones, and that input formats are normalized, but it does not cover failure modes for invalid AWBs, data freshness, auth, or rate limits.

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 purpose and followed by input flexibility and return contents. Every sentence adds information and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately mentions what is returned: status, route, milestones. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it could briefly note behavior on invalid or unknown AWBs.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by showing accepted AWB formats with examples such as '176-1234 5675' and '17612345675', confirming that formatting is normalized and flexible.

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+resource: 'Track an air-cargo shipment by its air waybill (AWB) number.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools air_rate_quote (pricing) and resolve_awb_prefix (prefix lookup), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 tracking context is clear and the accepted input formats are given, which helps an agent know when this tool applies. It does not explicitly say when to prefer resolve_awb_prefix for prefix resolution or air_rate_quote for pricing, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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