Resolve carrier route IDs to lane details: carrier, product code, origin/destination countries, weight band. Use after GetPartnerCarrierRates when you need to map carrierRouteId values to lanes (e.g. NL→LK UPS Express). Pass one or more numeric route IDs, comma-separated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intentId | No | Intent ID from RecordUserQuestion | |
| carrierRouteIds | Yes | Carrier route ID(s), comma-separated (e.g. "123,456") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Resolve...to lane details' strongly implies a read-only lookup with no side effects, which is adequate for a low-risk resolution tool, but it never states that explicitly, nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or behavior for unknown/invalid route IDs.
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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second covers when to call it and how to pass input. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 usefully enumerates the returned lane fields, and both parameters are schema-documented. It is nearly complete for a 2-parameter lookup; only the absence of any note on invalid/missing route IDs or the role of the optional intentId keeps 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates carrierRouteIds as 'one or more numeric route IDs, comma-separated', which matches the schema's own text and adds no new syntax or edge-case guidance; 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 ('Resolve') and resource ('carrier route IDs to lane details'), and enumerates exactly what a lane contains: carrier, product code, origin/destination countries, weight band. This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from sibling lookup tools like LookupByTrackTrace or PartnerSummary without opening a 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 explicit sequencing ('Use after GetPartnerCarrierRates when you need to map carrierRouteId values to lanes') plus a concrete scenario (NL→LK UPS Express). It lacks when-not-to-use or an explicitly named alternative, which keeps it out of the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
