Adopte un Conteneur - Container Delivery & Dimensions

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

Discloses automatic depot selection and return of HT/TTC prices. No annotations provided, so description partially covers behavioral traits. Lacks details on potential side effects, authorization needs, or completeness of price calculation.

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 efficiently convey purpose and key behavior. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, description hints at return fields (HT/TTC). Parameters are simple and well-documented. Could specify address format or currency, but overall adequate for a straightforward cost calculation 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?

Schema description covers all 3 parameters (100%). Description reiterates them in context but adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema definitions. Baseline score of 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?

Clear verb 'calcule le coût de livraison' with specific resource 'conteneurs maritimes vers une adresse en France'. Distinct from sibling 'getContainerDimensions' which focuses on dimensions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites (e.g., address format) or when not to use it. Only describes the core function.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool returns data (retourne) and mentions constraints like quantity needing size 20ft or 40ft. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 concise and covers the main functionality in a few sentences. It is well-structured, but could be slightly more organized by separating filter options from output details.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return values (dimensions, volumes, surfaces, weights) and parameters. It could be more explicit about the output format (e.g., list of containers) but is generally complete.

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%, but the description adds context such as using quantity for combined surfaces and requiring specific sizes. It also explains the purpose of volume and surface filters with examples.

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 clearly states it returns dimensions, volumes, surfaces, and weights of containers, with filtering by type, size, volume, and surface. It also mentions combined surfaces for multiple containers. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool for delivery cost.

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 explains filtering options and the quantity parameter's requirement for specific sizes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tool, though the sibling's purpose is distinctly different.

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