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

The description discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: it mentions the live pricing engine, the async agent double-check, and the need to poll via check_offer_status. The readOnlyHint=false annotation is consistent with the tool creating an offer, and the description adds value by describing the async flow and the volumetric weight rule.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the dimension caveat and the async follow-up instruction. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear and 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?

Given the 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the all-in DDP nature, the weight range, the pricing source, and the crucial async check flow. It mentions the email sending in the param description, which is part of the overall behavior. The flow is well-covered, though it could note the daily email limit in the main description, but it is present in the schema.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing dimensions for volumetric weight and the email's role in follow-up, but these are also covered in the parameter descriptions. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 DDP offer' for a China-to-USA shipment. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on offer generation, while check_offer_status and track_shipment handle later stages. The scope (100 g to 2,000 kg) is also explicitly defined.

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 clear guidance: it explains when to provide dimensions ('for light bulky cargo volumetric weight governs the price') and explicitly instructs the agent to 'call check_offer_status with the quote_id' after this returns, indicating the follow-up workflow. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you need a quote', but the context is unambiguous.

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