evaluate_insertion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computed outputs: marginal cost, best position, and violation checks. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating evaluation, nor describe the response shape beyond the listed outputs.

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 one dense, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core outputs, then states the input requirements. No filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main inputs, the decision context, and the key returned information. It could add date format guidance or clarification of 'active routes', but the provided description is largely sufficient for an agent to 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds important meaning by explaining that date is the context, and that either delivery_id (existing) or a new_delivery object must be provided. It does not detail nested new_delivery fields, but the schema field names are already self-explanatory.

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 purpose: computing marginal cost, best insertion position, and capacity/time-window feasibility for a delivery across active routes. The verb is implied by the tool name but the description itself is action-oriented and clearly differentiates from commit_insertion.

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?

It clearly communicates when to use the tool: when assessing insertion cost and feasibility for a given date. It explains the two input modes (existing delivery_id or new_delivery object), but it does not explicitly say 'use this before commit_insertion' or name alternatives.

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