Trade Preflight Gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'without storing the request', which reinforces the read-only nature but is largely redundant. It does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as error handling, rate limits, or return structure, so the description provides minimal extra transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with zero filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and the stateless qualifier is included efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 having annotations that cover safety, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not explain the parameters, output format, or any edge cases. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent guessing about optional inputs and return structure, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (origin_country, destination_country, material_use, product_description). It only implies that origin and destination define the corridor, but it gives no meaning for the optional parameters or their expected formats. The description entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clear verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('corridor-specific preflight checklist and product-risk flags'), and a scope ('corridor-specific'), which distinguishes it from generic preflight tools. It also adds a behavioral qualifier ('without storing the request') that differentiates it from stateful alternatives, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like trade_preflight or compare_preflight_quotes. The only hint is 'without storing', implying a stateless check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds the behavioral trait that no data (quote, supplier, user, D1) is stored, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It also implies the comparison is in-memory, but could be more explicit about the output or side effects, so a 4 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and the key constraint (2 to 5 quotes). It then adds a note about not storing data. This is concise and every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent the allowed input count and that no data is stored. However, the description doesn't explain what the comparison returns or how the result is presented, which could be important for an agent. Since the schema provides no output details, a complete description should mention that.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the schema only says 'quotes' is an array of objects with min/max items. The description adds meaning by specifying that exactly 2 to 5 quotes are compared, which clarifies the count constraint. Since the parameter 'quotes' is vague on its own, the description compensates somewhat, but it could provide more detail on the expected structure of each quote object.

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 the tool compares quotes, with a clear constraint on the number (2 to 5). It clearly indicates the action and resource, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'trade_preflight' or 'normalize_supplier_quote', so it loses one point.

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 context: it should be used when comparing quotes, and the constraint on count is explicit. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'trade_preflight', so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe transformation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the output is 'stateless' and the tool 'flag[s] hidden or missing costs,' which tells the agent what kind of result to expect beyond the schema. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and outcome. It is concise and readable, though it could add a brief note about required inputs without becoming 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?

For a transformation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the 'preflight quote passport' contains and what 'hidden or missing costs' means. The annotations cover safety, and the sibling names hint at the workflow, but the description alone is not fully sufficient for an agent to know exactly what inputs are needed and what the output will look like.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions 'one user-supplied supplier quote' and 'hidden or missing costs,' which loosely maps to the quote fields, but it does not explain key parameters like unit_price, quantity, origin_country, destination_country, or how currency/incoterm interact. With 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a clear gap.

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 verb ('Normalize') and resource ('one user-supplied supplier quote into a stateless preflight quote passport'), and adds a distinctive outcome ('flag hidden or missing costs'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_preflight_quotes or trade_preflight.

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 this is the entry point for processing a single supplier quote before comparison or preflight checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. The sibling names suggest a workflow (normalize → compare → check requirements), but the description leaves that inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: statelessness, the type of returned information, and the explicit boundary of never providing a final customs/legal conclusion. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The scope is front-loaded and every clause adds distinct information: statelessness, lane coverage, return contents, and the final-conclusion boundary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain how to specify currencies, when optional fields like hs_code or incoterm are needed, or what the manual-review flags imply. The core purpose is clear, but operational guidance is largely missing.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention hs_code, incoterm, currency fields, or how required fields relate to the output. The phrase 'known/unknown cost components' hints at some cost-related inputs, but it is far too generic to document 11 parameters effectively.

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 clearly states what the tool provides: a stateless preflight for China-to-US or China-to-EU shipments, returning official rule references, cost-component clarity, missing fields, and manual-review flags. It effectively conveys the resource and output scope, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name.

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 for when to use the tool: for preflight checks on China-US/EU shipments, not for final customs or legal conclusions. It includes a useful exclusion, though it does not explicitly reference alternative sibling tools or contrast conditions.

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