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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: fuzzy matching acceptance and an automatic 15% safety reserve that alters results. But it omits how drivers_license filters the recommendations, whether real availability is consulted, and what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the fuzzy-matching capability emphasized in caps. Some redundancy with the schema's examples, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 six-parameter, all-optional tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what happens when only some inputs are supplied (e.g., weight alone) and how the driver's license constrains results. It covers the core purpose and two behavioral quirks but leaves these gaps for an agent to guess.

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 baseline is 3. The description reaffirms that cargo_description ('2kk byt', '10 palet', 'lednice') can replace the dimension parameters, but the schema's own cargo_description field already lists those exact examples, so the added meaning is marginal; the drivers_license parameter is never explained behaviorally.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: recommending suitable vehicles based on cargo dimensions and weight. It is clearly distinct from siblings like check_availability and create_booking, though it never explicitly names those alternatives. The scope is understandable without opening the 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?

Usage is implied: call this when you have cargo dimensions/weight and want vehicle recommendations, and fuzzy text input is explicitly permitted as a substitute for exact dimensions. However, there is no statement of when NOT to use it, and no pointer to check_availability for actual availability or create_booking for the next step.

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