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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful behavior: the tool prefers a resident sovereign endpoint and falls back to the fleet root covering the member's region. It also hints at evolving availability ('as they go live'). However, it does not mention output shape, error behavior, or side-effect expectations.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is vague and fails to earn its place. The first sentence conveys the core lookup behavior; the second mostly obscures it with jargon.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It leaves out return value structure, example inputs, failure modes, and clear differentiation from sibling resolution tools. The cryptic terminology increases the chance an agent will misuse or underuse the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description lightly reinforces that 'node' is a member code used to find the serving surface, and 'category' relates to sovereign Carrier answers, but it does not add meaningful syntax or format detail 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 indicates that a member code resolves to a 'serving surface' or endpoint, and the title says 'Find Carriers for a jurisdiction,' so the general purpose is discernible. However, the phrasing is domain-specific and metaphorical ('serving surface,' 'sovereign Carrier set'), and it does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like resolve_carrier or get_fleet.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use find_carriers versus alternatives such as resolve_carrier or list_fleets. The second sentence mentions category and capability addressing but does not provide actionable selection criteria or exclusions.

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