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

Annotations only declare the generic write/open-world profile, so the description's additions carry real weight: the dispatcher calls back with the price, the tool itself returns no price, and the user's phone and e-mail are shared with a third party only after confirmation. It does not mention rate limits or how the request is acknowledged.

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?

Purpose and the confirmation workflow are front-loaded and the operational sentences (confirm before calling, no price returned) earn their place. The carrier credentials (GITD licence, 100,000 EUR liability, 5.0 from 29 reviewers) are largely non-operational padding for an invocation decision, though they support the 'which company can transport this' use case.

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 10 parameters at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies exactly what's missing: the consent protocol, the third-party data handoff, and the fact that no price is returned. An agent can drive the whole collect-summarize-confirm-call loop from it.

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 and the schema already documents every field including examples. The description adds only that pickup, delivery, goods, phone and e-mail should be collected and that user_confirmed gates the call, which is marginal over the existing user_confirmed description.

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 ('sends a request for a road transport price') and names the recipient (Kras-Trans dispatch), with the carrier's scope (vans up to 3.5 t, Poland and 25 EU countries). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling document-generation tools.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering situations: shipping goods, pallets, furniture or a removal, or the user asking which company can transport between Poland and Europe. No competing alternative needs to be excluded since siblings handle CMR/WZ/interest documents, but no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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