shipment_summary

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it chains deterministic engines, surfaces warnings for non-runnable sections, details rate limits (25/day/IP) with retry guidance, and explains the response format (camelCase, FreightUtils envelope). This adds significant value beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) which were already provided.

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 somewhat verbose, containing multiple paragraphs and repeating some schema information. However, it is well-structured with clear sections (input, behavior, returns, limitations, related tools) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, mode-specific logic, output schema exists), the description is very complete. It covers all input parameters, behavioral details, response format, error handling, limitations, and links to related tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still adds valuable context.

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 burden on the description is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: e.g., hs_code+customs_value enable duty, un_number enables dangerous goods, origin/destination refine duty. It also clarifies units (cm, kg). This extra information justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 is a composite analysis returning multiple mode-specific calculations (CBM, weight, LDM, vehicle suggestion, etc.), distinguishing it from single-purpose sibling tools. It specifies the required inputs (mode, items) and optional ones (origin, destination, incoterm) for refining results.

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 explains when to use the tool: for composite shipment analysis in one call. It mentions related single-purpose tools and implies that for individual calculations those may be more appropriate. It also provides guidance on rate limits and error handling. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this composite tool should not be used.

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