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

The readOnlyHint annotation confirms this is a non-destructive read operation. The description adds 'firm price', implying a committed quote rather than just a range, but it doesn't disclose if rates are guaranteed, whether the quote expires, or if it requires login. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the equipment, scope, and output. No wasted words.

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 quote tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is concise but covers the key differentiators. It could benefit from mentioning that the quote is based on the provided ZIPs and dimensions, but it's largely complete given the schema's thorough annotations.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds context by clarifying the pallet range (1-12) and that it's a 26' truck, but doesn't add additional parameter-specific detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is exceeded due to helpful constraint reinforcement.

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 identifies the specific equipment (26' box truck), the quantity constraint (1-12 pallets), and the output type (firm price). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like van_quote, ftl_quote, or ltl_quote by naming the exact mode.

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 implies usage (when you need a box truck quote) and states the core constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over van_quote or ftl_quote (e.g., pallet count thresholds), leaving some ambiguity.

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