Calculate Shipping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'estimate shipping cost' without revealing side effects, return format, error conditions, or any operational details. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, clean sentence that states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Estimate') and object ('shipping cost') and includes the key inputs. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric cost, currency, breakdown). While the tool is relatively simple, the lack of return value details and behavioral nuances leaves the context only partially 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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the schema provides the primary semantics. The description adds context about weight (which is derived from product and quantity) but does not explain any parameter syntax or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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's purpose: estimating shipping cost for a product. It identifies the key inputs (weight and destination zone), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order or validate_address. However, 'weight' is not a direct schema parameter, so the purpose is slightly imprecise.

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 when to use the tool (when estimating shipping), but it does not explicitly state usage contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, making usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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