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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral traits: it's a draft generator from a curated DGL, lists fields a DG-competent person must complete (flash point, net explosive mass, unverified PSN), and is never signed. This goes beyond a simple action statement and informs the user about limitations and safety-critical caveats.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence is informative (outputs, input, draft caveats). No fluff or repetition; it is appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns: the specific transport-document description, placards/marks, and packing-certificate statements. It also covers the draft nature and the fields left for human completion, giving a complete picture of the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter packingList, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that the input is a 'loadingmcp.packing-list' document and explicitly stating the payload is derived 'from its cargo lines,' which helps the agent understand the expected structure despite the opaque 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 specifies a precise action ('Draft the dangerous-goods paperwork') with a clear resource ('for a load from its cargo lines') and enumerates the exact outputs (IMDG 5.4.1 transport-document description, 5.3 placards, 5.4.2 packing-certificate statements). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like export_plan or import_packing_list.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: it takes a 'loadingmcp.packing-list' document and produces DG paperwork. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that a user can infer the appropriate scenario.

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