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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is redundant. The genuinely additive behavioral facts are the default-to-all-three semantics and the fact that each kind returns different domain payloads (loss norms, density, rate basis). No mention of result size, pagination, or whether 'q' filters across all kinds.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action and followed by the kind enumeration and the use case. Minimal waste; the inline Ukrainian terms add disambiguation rather than noise, though the sentence is long enough that the 'q' parameter gets lost entirely.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers the resource and the 'kinds' dimension adequately. The unexplained 'q' parameter is the notable hole an agent would hit when trying to search rather than browse.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does this well for 'kinds', spelling out all three enum values and what each returns, but never explains what 'q' queries (name? code? substring? which languages?) or that 'kinds' is a filter array whose omission means no filtering. Half the parameters are covered.

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 ('Read the logistics reference books in one call') and then enumerates exactly what those books are: cargo, rates, loss_norms, with a one-line characterization of each. An agent can immediately distinguish this from logistics_list_carriers or logistics_list_drivers.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('resolve a cargo or rate id before creating a freight order') and states the default behavior (all three kinds). It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough to route correctly.

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