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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful conceptual context about master definitions versus applied charges but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or return behavior. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The core search purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key distinction from applied label charges.

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 catalog search with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description provides enough domain context to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly stronger by naming the partner-specific sibling tool or clarifying result ordering, but no critical information is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given complete schema coverage and sets the baseline at 3.

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: searching the global carrier surcharge catalog. It also clarifies that these are master definitions rather than charges applied to labels, which meaningfully scopes the tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as GetPartnerCarrierSurcharges, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by contrasting catalog definitions with label-applied charges, helping the agent understand the domain. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives for partner-specific or applied surcharge lookups.

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