Carrier Ledger

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the return contract ('each one's most important red flag ... urgent ones first') and a hidden input constraint ('MC numbers also accepted, up to 10') not present in the schema. No contradictions 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 sentences, front-loaded with the batch capability and limits, then the use case. Every clause carries information (count, identifier type, per-type cap, data source, return ordering) with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does describe what comes back (the single most important red flag per carrier, urgent first). It stops short of describing per-carrier output shape or behavior on invalid/unknown numbers, which leaves a small gap for a screening tool.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema lacks: MC numbers are accepted but capped at 10 while USDOT supports the full 25. The schema description ('USDOT or MC numbers') conveys none of that nuance.

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 ('Checks ... U.S. carriers or brokers') with precise batch scope ('up to 25 ... at once') and the source of truth (FMCSA public records). It implicitly separates itself from the singular sibling lookup_carrier via 'at once,' but never names the alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 a clear triggering context: 'Use to screen a carrier list or a load board shortlist.' That tells the agent when to reach for this tool. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit routing (e.g. 'for a single carrier use lookup_carrier'), so the agent must infer the boundary with siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the returned fields (operating authority, insurance and bond, suspension or revocation notices, red flags), dataset provenance for each flag, and the caveat that it is not a rating or vetting decision. 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?

Three front-loaded sentences cover purpose, return contents, and usage boundary with no filler. The most important selection constraints come first, and every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully summarizes returned data and states the vetting caveat. It is close to complete for a read-only lookup, but it still gives no guidance on invalid-number handling or how it relates to the sibling batch and recent-notice tools.

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%, and the schema itself gives examples of both USDOT and MC number formats. The description repeats the lookup keys but adds no syntax, validation, or fallback behavior beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Looks up'), resource ('U.S. motor carrier or freight broker'), source ('FMCSA public records'), and identifiers ('USDOT number or MC number'). It does not name or contrast with the sibling tools check_carrier_list or recent_suspension_notices, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context ('Use before booking or paying a carrier or broker') and a clear boundary ('Not a rating or a vetting decision'). However, it does not say when to choose this over check_carrier_list or recent_suspension_notices, leaving alternatives unaddressed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious domain behavior: the notice has an effective date and FMCSA continues to report the company as "Active" until that date, which is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the interpretation caveat second. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 one-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (carriers/brokers, effective date) and the key interpretive caveat about "Active" status. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its default of 25). The description's "newest first" phrasing echoes the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the 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 and resource: lists carriers/brokers that received an FMCSA involuntary suspension notice, and names the usual cause (insurance cancelled). It is distinguishable from the per-carrier siblings lookup_carrier and check_carrier_list by being a notice feed, though that contrast is left implicit rather than stated.

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 by the content (a recent-notices feed with newest-first default), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling lookup tools. An agent can infer the context but is not routed.

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