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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses the data source (UN/LOCODE via DataHub, ODC-PDDL), the scope limitation that it marks facilities but does not report operators or capacity, and the pricing/charging behavior including x402 payment and no charge for failed calls. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent would not infer from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then optional behavior, data limitations, and pricing. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: what the data represents, what it excludes, how to broaden results, and the cost model. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 the parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds some domain context by clarifying that country scoping applies and that includeSeaports broadens results to multimodal seaports, but it does not add syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: inland container depots and dry ports by country from UN/LOCODE, specifically multimodal function-6 locations that are not seaports. It also distinguishes the output from a seaport listing and names the fields returned, so the agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 makes the core usage condition clear: use this for inland depots/dry ports, and optionally include multimodal seaports via includeSeaports. It implies the sibling seaport tool is the alternative for seaports, but it does not explicitly name logistics_seaport_unlocode or state when not to use this tool.

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