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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it compares specific fields (authority, identity, insurance, etc.), returns status, severity, field-level changes, and next action. It also discloses that the tool does not silently store data, requiring the agent to persist snapshots. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It packs essential details (fields compared, output contents, storage requirement) without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning about watchlists is critical for correct usage.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (status, severity, changes, next action) and the essential workflow (store snapshot, schedule calls). It covers the stateful nature and data handling, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats that previous_snapshot is a prior result and mentions accepting a DOT/MC/name (already in schema). It does tie the parameters together by explaining the tool's acceptance of an identifier and prior snapshot, but this is minor added value.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Recheck an existing carrier snapshot and identify meaningful changes since the previous check.' It specifies verb (recheck), resource (carrier snapshot), and the core function (identify changes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like carrier_vetting_score (initial scoring) or fmcsa_carrier_lookup (basic lookup).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Store the returned current_snapshot in your own system and call this on a schedule.' It also warns that LiveDataLink does not retain watchlists, implying the agent must manage snapshots. This makes it clear when to use this tool (for ongoing monitoring) and what to do with its output, effectively guiding agent behavior.

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