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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with the authorization rule that partners only see their own surcharges, but it says nothing about the limit/pagination behavior (default 100) or whether exceeding the limit truncates results.

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?

One compact sentence with the scope and payload front-loaded before the access rule. No filler, though it is on the terse side for a 7-parameter tool.

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 filtered list with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is the absence of any routing hint against SearchCarrierSurcharges.

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 every parameter including amount, carrier, search, and carrierContractId is already documented with examples. The description only loosely echoes 'margin, contract' and adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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') and enumerates what is returned (margin, contract, linked carrier products), plus a scoping constraint ('partners only see their own surcharges'). It never names the closely related sibling SearchCarrierSurcharges, so an agent must infer which one to pick.

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 partner-scoped nature implies when it applies (retrieving surcharges for a given partner), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus SearchCarrierSurcharges or UpdatePartnerSurcharge/AddPartnerSurcharge. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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