Triplicate – export documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the metrics it computes, but does not disclose calculation assumptions (e.g., volumetric divisors), input constraints, or return format; with annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a moderate addition.

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 a colon that lists inputs first and outputs second. Every word earns its place and nothing is wasted.

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 read-only calculation tool with no output schema, the description does list the returned metrics, which helps an agent understand what to expect. It is only missing calculation assumptions (e.g., volumetric weight divisors) and the precise response shape, which are minor given the tool's self-contained nature.

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 description names the input categories (carton sizes, quantities, gross weights) but does not explain the nested array structure, optional gross_weight_kg, or units beyond what the schema field names already convey. With low schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 precisely what the tool computes from carton sizes, quantities, and gross weights: total CBM, gross weight, volumetric/chargeable weights, LCL revenue tons, and container fit. This is a specific verb-resource pairing (calculate shipment metrics) that is clearly distinct from the sibling tools create_trade_documents and lookup_hs_code.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies usage only through the list of inputs and outputs, leaving the agent to infer the context on its own.

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

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

Annotations confirm read-only (readOnlyHint=true, no writes), but the description adds critical behavioral detail: returns a generator link, totals, consistency checks, and explicitly 'Nothing is stored.' This tells the agent the tool is stateless and what side effects (none) to expect.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: first states what is created, second describes return contents, third states no persistence. Front-loaded, zero waste.

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?

With 13 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately covers return shape (link, totals, checks) and safety (read-only, no storage). It doesn't explain the numerous nested parameters, but for an agent deciding whether to call, the key behavioral facts are present.

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 46%, so the schema handles some param docs. The description mentions output generation but doesn't explain parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema; it does not compensate for the 54% undocumented param space.

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 ('Create') and concrete resource ('matching proforma invoice, commercial invoice, packing list and shipping instruction') from one dataset. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_shipment and lookup_hs_code.

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 phrasing 'from one set of order data' implies usage when you have consolidated order info. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the siblings or list any prerequisites/exclusions; usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the reliability limit of the output (suggestions, not rulings) and what the response contains (candidate codes with chapter/heading text). It does not mention the limit parameter's behavior on result volume.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and receiving a decisive caveat at the end. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers inputs, return shape, and the key reliability caveat. The only gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 only 50%: query is documented in the schema while limit is not. The description restates and reinforces the two query forms, adding little beyond the schema example, and says nothing about what limit controls or its default of 8.

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 (Search) and resource (HS 2022 nomenclature) with explicit scope (6-digit international level) and input modes (English description or code prefix). The sibling tools are unrelated shipment/document operations, so no differentiation is needed and none is missing.

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?

Explains the two acceptable query forms and, importantly, that results are suggestions to confirm in the destination tariff rather than rulings — a real usage caveat. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over an alternative lookup, but no relevant alternative exists among the siblings.

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