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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld; the description adds substantive context beyond them: provenance and license (Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0), explicit data exclusions (tare weights and max gross loads not included), and paid-call semantics ($0.002 USDC via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failures uncharged). The omission note in particular prevents an agent from assuming weight data exists.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a dense but scannable field enumeration, then caveats and pricing; every clause carries information. The field list and licensing parenthetical are long, but they are load-bearing for an agent deciding whether the dataset answers its question.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained; the description covers scope, lookup modes, data provenance, known limitations, and cost. For a zero-required-parameter reference lookup this is essentially 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% and the single parameter already documents the same examples (LD3, AKE, P1P) and empty-lists-all behavior the description repeats. The only marginal addition is the word 'prefix', implying partial-code matching, so the schema is doing the work here.

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 resource (air cargo ULD specs) with an explicit enumeration of the data it returns (IATA codes, volume, height/depth/width, contour, aircraft fit) and the source table. No sibling in the logistics_* set covers ULD container geometry, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance: 'Search by LD name or IATA prefix' and 'Empty lists all', which tells the agent both the lookup key and the list-all behavior. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, but no sibling overlaps this domain enough to require it.

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