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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the internal engine calls, the 2.40 m LDM divisor, the 'not stacked by default' behavior, the distinction between pallet floor positions and palletRows, warning-based failure handling, and the exact rate-limit/retry contract. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to set expectations and handle errors 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?

The description is long, but the tool genuinely is a multi-mode composite and the length is earned. It is front-loaded with output scope, then parameters, behavior, return shape, limitations, and related tools, with no repeated schema text or filler. Every sentence adds operational or selection value.

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 tool with this many modes and sub-calculations, the description covers inputs, outputs, failure modes, rate limits, naming conventions, and limitations very thoroughly. The one notable gap is the mention of an 'incoterm' parameter that does not exist in the provided schema, which prevents the description from being fully trustworthy as a complete contract.

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; the description adds useful composite-level context such as units, optional DG/duty fields, and origin/destination affecting the duty leg. However, it explicitly references an 'incoterm' parameter that is absent from the input schema, which is misleading, and it omits the adr_quantity/adr_quantity_unit pairing that the schema itself has to document in detail. The added value is offset by that inconsistency.

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 first sentence names a precise composite resource and verb — 'Composite shipment analysis in one call' — and then itemizes the concrete outputs: CBM, gross/chargeable weight, LDM with pallet spaces and vehicle suggestion, volumetric weight, revenue tonnes with container suggestion, DG presence, and UK duty estimates. This also separates the tool from its many single-purpose siblings by framing it as the composite alternative.

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?

The description explicitly says this is a composite one-call tool and names the single-purpose equivalents and internal engines: ldm_calculator, adr_lookup, uk_duty_calculator, cbm_calculator, chargeable_weight_calculator, and consignment_calculator. It also draws a firm boundary with 'a planning summary, not a quotation or compliance determination,' giving the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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