Bijack Loadboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns only public card-level data and public URLs, which is helpful for understanding output scope. However, it does not disclose other traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or whether results are cached, leading to moderate transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and searchable fields; the second clarifies output scope. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but lacks completeness given the tool's complexity: 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations. It does not describe the 'limit' or 'announced_since_hours' parameters, and no usage context or behavioral notes are provided. It is adequate but leaves several gaps.

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%, but the description names five of seven parameters (query, origin, destination, goods, loader) and explains their roles (e.g., 'by free text, origin, destination...'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it omits 'limit' and 'announced_since_hours', so not all parameters are covered.

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 the tool's purpose: searching active public Bijack cargos. It specifies the resource (cargos) and the action (search) with multiple search dimensions (free text, origin, destination, goods, loader). Although sibling tool 'search_loadboard_halls' exists, its name implies a different focus, and the description sufficiently distinguishes by being specific to cargos.

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 for searching cargos by provided fields but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. A score of 3 indicates implied usage with no further direction.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool returns only public hall metadata and URLs, implying a safe read operation. It does not mention destructive effects or authentication, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 redundancy. It frontloads the action and follows with return value information. Every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers search criteria and output type. However, it lacks guidance on search behavior with multiple parameters, ordering, or pagination. The optionality of parameters is implied but not explicit.

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 description maps four of five parameters (query, province, city, loader) to searchable fields, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, 'limit' is not mentioned, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.

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 the tool searches halls by title, province, city, or loader, and specifies 'public Bijack loadboard halls' and what it returns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_cargos', leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'search_cargos'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or why one might choose this over alternatives.

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