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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the 180-day lookback, exclusion of cancelled bookings, per-pallet LTL comparison, the four possible verdicts, the median/low/high it compares against, the record count the verdict rests on, and an explicit auth requirement. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does and against what baseline, then usage, then the critical caveat about not presenting it as market data, then the auth note. Every sentence carries a distinct, load-bearing instruction with no padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (verdict enum, median/low/high, booking count). Combined with the usage caveats and auth note, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description clarifies how the parameters map to the comparison (lane = origin/destination, per-pallet LTL handling, 180-day window). It adds modest interpretive value on top of a fully documented schema rather than merely restating field names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (judge a price against this account's own paid history on the same lane and mode) and explicitly contrasts it with market data, which separates it from siblings like ltl_market_options and lane_history. The scope (own bookings, last 180 days, cancelled excluded) is precise enough to identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Call after quoting a lane the account has shipped before, to tell the user whether the price is good for them') plus explicit when-not guidance ('never present it as a market rate, and say nothing about the price when the verdict is no_basis'). The agent knows both when to invoke it and how to behave afterward.

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