quote_shipping_rate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the logic: 'Resolves the layered rate table (base per route and weight bracket, product override, destination special) and returns the winning rule with the math, plus the price of the other products for comparison.' This gives insight into the calculation process. It does not disclose if the tool is read-only, but the description implies no side effects.

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: the first states the core purpose concisely, and the second adds valuable detail on the internal logic and output. Every sentence is relevant and there is no waste.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does: 'returns the winning rule with the math, plus the price of the other products for comparison.' This is sufficient for an agent to understand output. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases, but overall it is contextually complete for a pricing tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining how parameters are used in rate resolution (route, weight brackets, product overrides, destination specials). This provides context that the schema descriptions do not, earning an extra point.

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: 'Price a shipment for a route, weight, and product.' It specifies the inputs (route, weight, product) and what it does (resolves layered rate table, returns winning rule, comparison prices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_shipments or track_shipment.

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 pricing a shipment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude other tools. Sibling tools like get_shipment might also include pricing, but no guidance is provided. Lacks 'when-not-to-use' or explicit alternative references.

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