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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: the price carries a validity date, the CMR path only exists after the price is accepted, and the agent must never accept the price on the user's behalf. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g. unknown quote number or mismatched e-mail).

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, what it needs and where to get it, then the workflow constraint front-loaded before the action limit. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully (status, net price with validity, CMR print destination), plus the input sourcing and the guardrail. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the number's source (request_transport_quote or the e-mail) and the requirement that the e-mail match the one used in the request. This pairing constraint is genuinely useful for correct invocation.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it checks a Kras-Trans transport quote and states exactly what is returned (status, dispatch price with validity date, CMR print location). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from request_transport_quote by naming it as the upstream origin of the quote number.

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?

Explains when to reach for it (looking up a quote's status/price/CMR) and what inputs are needed, and gives a clear behavioral guardrail about not accepting the price. It does not, however, explicitly rule out alternatives or name a sibling to use instead for related tasks.

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