market_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the report is indicative decision support (not a quote/booking/legal advice), names which engines contributed, and states availability issues honestly. It also explicitly mentions premium pricing (pay per call).

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 long but well-structured with numbered sections and front-loaded purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., listing all sections in detail), but it remains efficient for a complex tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return value by enumerating the report sections. It also covers how optional parameters affect output, pricing, and limitations, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 some context (e.g., product/value unlock sections, defaults for container_type and ship_date) but does not significantly expand on the schema descriptions.

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 composes a comprehensive executive market intelligence report for a freight lane, listing six detailed sections plus an executive summary, headline, and action list. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., get_spot_rate, carrier_recommendation) by being an aggregate report, not a single data 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 use when a committee-ready brief is needed and mentions optional parameters to deepen the report. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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