door_to_door

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that inland figures are modeled market-typical bands (regla 7), not trucker quotes, and mentions PREMIUM costing (x402 on Base or prepaid key). It also notes UN/LOCODE normalization. However, it does not explain error handling, data freshness, or default behaviors for optional parameters beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and then systematically details components and special cases. There is no wasted text; the length is justified by the complexity.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's behavior well, including output (door-to-door total, p50/p90 transit). It also notes that inland adds 15-40%. However, it does not specify the exact output format (e.g., JSON structure) or handling of missing optional parameters, leaving minor 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the role of each parameter in the door-to-door calculation (e.g., inland_destination triggers interior haul with rail-vs-truck decision, urgent biases to truck). It provides examples and clarifies defaults (e.g., inland cost band default 'typical', interior mode default cheaper of the two).

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 it returns the true door-to-door cost and time, distinguishing it from port-to-port tools. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like get_spot_rate, and details the components covered (inland legs, chassis, gate fees). This meets the highest standard of specificity and differentiation.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'The ocean tools price PORT-TO-PORT; this layers the INLAND legs.' It also mentions PREMIUM pricing and that inland figures are modeled bands, guiding agents on appropriate context. No exclusions are needed.

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