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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, historical snapshot semantics, rate limits, or return shape. For a lookup tool with zero annotation support, this is a significant gap.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose and required inputs are presented directly.

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 lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the basic purpose and required inputs. However, it leaves format and behavioral details unspecified, which limits confidence for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter definitions. It names 'docket number' and 'as-of date', which adds minimal semantic value, but provides no format, constraints, or meaning for the as-of date beyond its name.

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 ('Return'), resource ('carrier record'), and the key lookup inputs ('docket number and as-of date'). It is clear but does not differentiate this tool from the sibling carrier_record tool, which appears closely related.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for a docket number and as-of date' identifies required inputs but does not explain the selection context or exclusions relative to siblings like carrier_record.

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