rate_benchmark

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

Without annotations, the description covers behavioral traits: it uses a modeled dispersion around an index mid, not real quotes, and explains the pricing model (pay per call or prepaid key). It also describes the return values (percentile, over/under pay, corrective lever). No contradictions.

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 verbose and includes marketing language ('am I being clamped?', 'Proves:'). While it front-loads purpose and includes critical details, it could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, but the length reduces scanability.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (percentile, over/under pay, savings, lever). With 8 parameters and no annotations, it covers use cases, limitations, and pricing. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 by explaining parameter intent (paid_rate_usd as 'the rate you currently PAY'), usage context (annual_containers to annualize savings), and how optional parameters affect benchmarking (is_contract flags high contracts). This goes beyond 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 benchmarks a rate against market bands, using specific verbs like 'Benchmark' and explaining the output (percentile, over/under payment). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_spot_rate' or 'market_report' by focusing on comparing an existing rate.

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: 'the am I being clamped? check every shipper wants.' It provides guidance on required inputs (lane + paid_rate_usd) and mentions honest limitations (modeled dispersion, not real quotes), though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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