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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for unknown USDOT numbers, or what the record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with no annotations or output schema to lean on.

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 two-parameter read tool this covers the essentials: the resource, the key, and the date qualifier. Without annotations or an output schema, however, the description should say more about the as_of format and what the returned record comprises.

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 schema adds nothing beyond titles. The description compensates partially by mapping both parameters to meaning ('USDOT number' and 'as-of date'), but gives no format details (ISO date? numeric string?) for either.

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 ('Return') and resource ('carrier record') and identifies the keying parameter (USDOT number), which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling carrier_record_by_docket. The differentiation is real but only conveyed by implication rather than by naming the alternative.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus carrier_record_by_docket, verify, or coverage. No prerequisites or lookup-order advice is given, leaving the agent to infer from the params alone.

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