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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a real trait: per-partner visibility restriction ('Partners only see their own surcharges') and the underlying endpoint. It omits read-only confirmation, result ordering, and pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit default.

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 with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage hint plus permission constraint follow immediately. Every clause 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 seven-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filterable fields, a usage example, and access scoping. Return-format details are not needed (list semantics), but pagination and ordering behavior are left unaddressed.

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 all seven parameters with examples (e.g. amount=55 for €55). The description's mention of 'margin, contract, linked carrier products' loosely maps to amount, carrierContractId, and carrier, but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('List partner carrier surcharges') plus the resource path and the fields it returns (margin, contract, linked carrier products). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling SearchCarrierSurcharges, but the 'partner' scoping is clear enough to infer the distinction.

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?

Provides concrete usage context with an example question ('are DPD surcharges correct for partner X?') and a scoping rule ('Partners only see their own surcharges'). It stops short of naming when to prefer the sibling SearchCarrierSurcharges, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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