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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses domain scope (master definitions in a global catalog vs. applied label surcharges), which is the key behavioral distinction here, and 'Search' implies a read. However it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination beyond the schema's limit field, or result shape.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core scope stated first and the disambiguation second. 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 parameter-light read tool with a fully documented schema, the definition covers selection and routing well. The residual gap is return shape/pagination behavior, which is not covered by any output schema or annotation and goes unmentioned.

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% with each of the four parameters documented inline (limit, search, carrier, intentId). The description adds no filtering syntax, matching rules, or enum guidance beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 ('Search') plus the resource and its scope ('global carrier surcharge catalog (master definitions)'), and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling SearchLabelSurcharges. An agent can distinguish it from the applied-surcharge tool without opening either schema.

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 both positive guidance ('use before configuring partner surcharges') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('not for applied label surcharges (use SearchLabelSurcharges)'). The when/when-not/alternative triad is fully covered.

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