calculate_transport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it explicitly states read-only, idempotent, no side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, and data privacy. 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?

Well-structured with clear sections, but has redundancy between 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections, repeating read-only and idempotent information. Could be more concise.

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 includes return value hint, input descriptions, behavior, and constraints. It covers error handling and rate limits. However, the return format could be more detailed. Overall adequate for the tool's 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 description coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It explains equipment_id, distance_miles, depot, and return_trip with context. The api_key is not in the Args list but is described in the authentication section. Overall adds meaningful semantics beyond schema.

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 estimates transport costs for equipment delivery/collection, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_rental_quote and search_equipment by focusing on transport cost estimation.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide context and exclusions, though the 'When to use' could be more specific to transport cost estimation rather than generic analysis. Alternatives are not explicitly named but differentiation is clear.

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