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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it resolves identity signals from specific sources (SEC/GLEIF/USAspending/EPA), checks sanctions and public-record standing, and returns a review checklist. It also transparently warns that name matches are candidates to verify, which is important uncertainty disclosure.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds sources, output, and caveats in a logical order. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, data sources, output type, and caveats. A minor gap is that both shipper and receiver are optional in the schema, and the description does not explicitly state that at least one should be provided, though 'a shipper, receiver, or both' implies it.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Create an evidence-backed counterparty pack') for a specific scope ('a shipper, receiver, or both'), and it differentiates itself from related tools by focusing on shipper/receiver counterparty review rather than carrier vetting or generic company lookup. It also clarifies what the tool is not ('not a credit report or endorsement'), which strengthens the distinction.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when credit terms and load release decisions need an evidence-backed counterparty review. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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