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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description still adds value: it clarifies nothing is created and nothing is charged, discloses the EUR-excl-VAT pricing basis, and states the carrier-contract ownership constraint. These are real behavioral facts beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Four compact sentences with zero waste, front-loading what is charged and the read-only guarantee before the precondition and the sibling reference. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description covers pricing unit, read-only nature, contract constraint, and recommended sequencing. It could note the response shape (e.g. a price value), but the annotations and schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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 80%, so the schema already documents carrier, service, to, from, and packages. The description adds only the carrier-contract constraint and does not clarify parameter formats or the from-defaults behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 holds.

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+resource: returns what shipcloud would charge for a shipment, with currency and VAT basis (EUR excl. VAT). It is the only quote tool among siblings and explicitly positions itself against shipcloud_create_shipment_with_label, so an agent can tell it apart 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?

Explicitly says to use it before shipcloud_create_shipment_with_label, giving a clear ordering and alternative. It also names a hard precondition (only carrier contracts owned by shipcloud), though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases beyond that constraint.

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