consignment_calculator

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. The description adds behavioral details about combining multiple items, mode-specific chargeable weight calculations (road: LDM-based, air: volumetric, sea: W/M), which go beyond the annotations and inform the agent about internal logic.

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 and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by a summary, usage guidelines, and input format. Every sentence is informative without redundancy, earning 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 description covers the main outputs ('total CBM, weight, loading metres, and chargeable weight') and mode-specific logic. No output schema exists, but the description could be more explicit about the return format. However, for a multi-item calculator, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing parameter usage (e.g., 'Provide an array of items, each with length, width, height (cm) and optional weight, quantity, and pallet type') and explaining the mode parameter's effect on chargeable weight calculation, which enriches 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 clearly states 'Calculate total CBM, weight, loading metres, and chargeable weight for multi-item consignments,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cbm_calculator and ldm_calculator by emphasizing multi-item and mode-specific calculations.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('Quote a mixed consignment... Calculate total CBM... Get mode-specific chargeable weight') and implies when not to use it (e.g., for single items, use other calculators). However, it does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough.

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