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

With only generic annotation flags, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses that the tool creates the note, returns a review link, enables a free 4-copy PDF download, works in 25 languages, and that fields 22–24 are intentionally added on paper after printing. This tells the agent what the user will experience after the call.

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?

The core behavior and output are front-loaded, and each clause adds relevant information. The multi-language synonym list is long but serves as practical routing vocabulary; a shorter version could trim it without losing clarity, so it is not maximally concise.

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?

Given 18 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is produced (link + free 4-copy PDF), what to ask for, and the paper-signature step. It does not mention link expiry or repeated-call behavior, but those are minor for a tool whose schema fully documents its fields.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds value by prioritizing which fields the agent should actively collect from the user (sender, consignee, places, goods) and noting that stamps/signatures are handled outside the tool, which shapes how optional parameters are treated.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: it creates an international CMR consignment note on kras-trans.eu and returns a link/PDF. It also names the exact standard (Geneva Convention 1956, IRU layout, 24 fields), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools that create interest notes or WZ goods-issue notes.

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?

It gives an explicit 'Use for' list with CMR and equivalent terms in multiple languages, and tells the agent to ask only for missing essentials (sender, consignee, places, goods). It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over non-CMR siblings.

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