adr_lq_eq_check

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

Annotations indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context about ADR sections and modes (LQ/EQ). It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient transparency for a simple lookup tool.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by regulatory context, then a list of use cases, and finally parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Despite good annotations and schema coverage, the description lacks information about the output or return format. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the function returns (e.g., boolean, structured result). Error handling or failure cases are also not mentioned.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the schema by explaining the mode and items structure, and it adds a helpful note about inner_packaging_qty for EQ mode, which provides extra semantic context.

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 defines the tool's purpose: checking dangerous goods for LQ/EQ exemptions. It explains the regulatory context and lists specific use cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'adr_exemption_calculator'.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios (e.g., 'Use this tool when you need to:' with four bullet points) and specifies the batch limit of 20 items. It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools.

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