Western Container Sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it references live delivery-quote / DHRC and 'fails closed when that container cannot serve the ZIP,' which is meaningful failure-mode transparency. It could say more about latency or quota, but this is solid.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by the underlying data source and failure behavior. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only validation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete, adding failure-mode and data-source context. The main missing element is guidance on when to choose this over sibling offer tools, which would strengthen routing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Sale container SKU,' '5-digit US ZIP code'). The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clear validation purpose: 'validating whether a specific Sale SKU can be delivered to a ZIP and what delivery/delivered totals apply.' This identifies the verb (validate/check) and resources (Sale SKU, ZIP, delivery totals). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_sale_offers or get_rental_offers, which is the only gap.

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 phrase 'Use this when validating whether...' implies usage context but does not specify when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_sale_offers or get_rental_offers, nor does it state exclusions. It provides only implied guidance.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe, deterministic lookup. The description adds a valuable behavioral constraint (no fabricated fallback), but with no output schema or return format details it does not add rich enough context to exceed a 3.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by the behavioral boundary. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 one-param lookup with a full annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the semantic purpose, and the failure behavior. It is a bit thin on what 'Market' concretely means, keeping it from a 5.

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 100% for the single 'zip' parameter ('5-digit US ZIP code'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds meaning by tying the ZIP to 'geographic ownership', but provides no format or validation beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('find' + 'canonical customer Market') and the triggering input ('US ZIP'). It distinguishes itself from the read-oriented siblings by its mapping/normalization purpose, though without explicitly naming those siblings a 5 is not warranted.

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 provides explicit when-to-use context ('when the user provides a US ZIP and WCS needs the canonical customer Market') and a negative boundary ('Does not invent a Market when geography cannot answer'), which tells the agent not to force a result. No named alternatives are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description's added value is mostly output-semantics guidance (what each price field means), which is real but framed as a correction. It discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, but over half the text is field-definition and a negative instruction ('Never describe...') that reads as output-format policing rather than tool-selection help. It is not padded with filler, but the emphasis is misplaced for a definition whose job is invocation.

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 single-param read tool with full annotations, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient to call it correctly. However, it never mentions the sibling get_sale_offers it is easily confused with, and with no output schema the field explanations only partially substitute for return-structure documentation.

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 100% (zip is documented as a 5-digit US ZIP), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description names no parameter and adds no format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (offers) and resource (Rental containers) scoped to a ZIP, and the trigger condition (user asks what's offered to a ZIP). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_sale_offers or check_delivery, which it could have done given the naming overlap.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('when the user asks what Rental containers WCS offers to a ZIP'), which implies when not to use it (sale offers go elsewhere). It names no alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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 establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful constraint 'Does not invent prices' (no fabricated pricing), which is genuinely useful behavioral context not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the return contents. The final 'Does not invent prices' line is slightly tangential to conciseness but carries real behavioral 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the offer types returned. Coverage of what is returned plus the no-invented-prices caveat makes it largely complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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 100% for the single 'zip' parameter, so the schema already documents the '5-digit US ZIP code' format. The description only restates that ZIP scoping applies, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

State a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Sale offer'), scoped to selling containers to a ZIP. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_rental_offers and enumerates the offer categories (WWT, CWO, One Trip) so an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger: 'Use this when the user asks what containers WCS can sell to a ZIP,' plus a guardrail not to omit One Trip for used/storage queries. It does not name the sibling alternatives (find_market, get_rental_offers) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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