Search matching capacity

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds real operational context the annotations do not: it consumes a daily quota named "matches_search" and requires the matches:read scope. It also warns that prices are non-binding estimates, which is behaviorally useful. It stops short of describing pagination or result caps.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by pricing caveat, quota, and scope. The only waste is the leading line restating the title verbatim.

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 carries some return-value burden and does partly address it by saying results are trips fitting route, time and free capacity, with non-binding prices. Quota and auth scope are also covered. A brief note on result ordering or limits would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the loading_requirement enum semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource relationship: it "Finds trips whose route, time and free capacity fit your shipment." That is materially clearer than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling open_requests_list_matches, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this search.

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?

Usage is only implied by the inputs required (origin, destination, weight) and the quota/auth notes. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling list-matches tool, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the read scope.

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