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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it states that no record row is returned, that the answer reflects what the archive holds rather than carrier truth, and clarifies semantic pitfalls (filing on record ≠ coverage in force; absence ≠ finding unless provable). This goes far beyond a simple 'returns info' and preempts misinterpretation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds essential value—no filler. It efficiently conveys scope, limitations, and interpretive nuances without being verbose.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the purpose, the nature of the response, and the correct interpretation of results, covering all the information an agent needs to call it correctly and understand its output. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain both parameters. It does so in the first sentence: 'Qualify a USDOT number and an as-of date' and further contextualizes them. It does not specify date format or validation rules, but it conveys the semantic role of each parameter, which is sufficient given the simple types.

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 action (qualify) and resource (a USDOT number and as-of date), and clearly explains what the tool does: assess whether the archive can answer, what sources hold, and what a purchased record could establish. It differentiates from a retrieval tool by explicitly noting 'It returns no row of the record,' which distinguishes it from siblings that might fetch records, though it does not name those siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to qualify a USDOT number and as-of date regarding archive coverage and potential findings. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is explicit enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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