consignment_calculator

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds context: results are deterministic, flags are advisory only, not regulatory or compliance advice, and it's best-effort. No contradictions. It adds value beyond annotations.

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 organized: starts with purpose, then input details, then flags and disclaimers. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the main purpose effectively.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple calculations, two input formats, advisory flags, optional options) and no output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, limitations, and disclaimers well. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches by explaining the purpose of 'lines' vs 'items', the mode enum, and optional options like container_number and air_volumetric_divisor. It clarifies units and defaults, adding meaning beyond the 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 uses specific verbs ('calculate', 'provide') and lists resources (CBM, loading metres, chargeable weight, per-line and grand totals, advisory flags). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by combining multiple calculations into one and mentioning the legacy 'items' format.

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 states when to use the tool (multi-item mixed consignment) and explains the two input options ('lines' vs 'items'), including that 'items' is deprecated. It also mentions optional options but does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools or give when-not-to-use scenarios.

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