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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the data provenance (ImportYeti public pages built on US CBP vessel manifest records), the coverage ceiling (~50 recent rows), the billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc) and that failed calls are not charged. Payment/auth cost behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to decide whether to invoke.

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 the resource and its fields, then constraints and pricing in two short trailing sentences. Every clause carries information, though the first sentence is a long field enumeration that could be tightened slightly.

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 and annotations already cover return shape and safety, and the description fills the remaining gaps: source of truth, geographic/modal limits, row-count ceiling, and per-call cost. Nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'name or ImportYeti slug' convention and the 1–50 limit range. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: US import bills of lading for a company, with an explicit enumeration of returned fields (date, house/master B/L, shipper, origin, product, weight, quantity) plus aggregate stats. It is clearly separable from siblings like logistics_container_tracking or logistics_us_cbp_cross_rulings because it names the exact source (CBP vessel manifest via ImportYeti).

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?

States the operating envelope crisply: 'Sea freight into the US only; recent rows only (about 50)', which tells the agent when this tool is insufficient (air freight, older history, deep archives). It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative for those cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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