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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it resolves the carrier, combines multiple evidence sources, flags specific risk indicators, and returns CLEAR/REVIEW/BLOCK with reasons, links, and a checklist. It also discloses that it is an analytical aid and not a substitute for direct verification, which is valuable caveat information.

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 three information-dense sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, then summarizes inputs, outputs, and caveats efficiently. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and limitations.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return elements: disposition, reasons, source coverage, primary links, and a dispatcher verification checklist. Combined with complete parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining how the carrier address is used for 'coarse location consistency check' and by framing the tender context as part of the screening logic, which enriches understanding beyond the parameter names alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Screen a carrier before accepting or dispatching a load.' It clearly defines the tool's analytical scope (FMCSA authority, insurance, safety, sanctions, court, federal-award evidence) and differentiates it from sibling carrier tools by emphasizing tender context, disposition outcomes, and fraud-screening purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: before accepting or dispatching a load. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough to guide selection among carrier-related siblings.

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