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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description adds substantial behavior: the carrier number (ПЕР-…) is server-assigned, and the tool is a two-step proposal that returns status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and plan_token, with the actual write occurring only via confirm_action. That is exactly the kind of workflow detail annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing failure modes (duplicate names, validation errors) which would push it higher.

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?

Content is front-loaded: purpose and kind semantics first, then parameter guidance, then the server-assigned identifier, then the confirmation protocol. The brief redundancy between 'Requires confirmation' and the following 'CONFIRMATION:' block is intentional emphasis for a critical safety behavior rather than filler, but it is still duplicated phrasing.

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 10-parameter write tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly, especially the mandatory two-step confirmation flow and the fact that fields beyond 'name' are optional but practically necessary. It is not fully complete: no guidance on defaults for status/rating, what organization_id does, or duplicate handling.

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% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry weight — and it does: it explains 'kind' (Own vs Hired), which fields are required versus what makes a record usable (edrpou, contact_person, phone, contract), and that the carrier number is server-generated rather than a caller input. It leaves notes, rating, status and organization_id unexplained, which is why it is not a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a carrier') and disambiguates the domain term with the local-language equivalent (перевізник). It further clarifies the two variants via the 'kind' semantics ('Own' = own fleet, 'Hired' = subcontractor). It does not explicitly contrast itself with logistics_update_carrier or logistics_create_driver, so sibling differentiation relies on the name alone.

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 gives clear creation context: 'name' is required, and ЄДРПОУ, contact person, phone and contract are what make the record usable, which steers the agent toward populating the important fields. It provides no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives (e.g. use logistics_update_carrier for an existing carrier), leaving the when-not-to-use case to inference.

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