shipment_summary

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

Even with annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: direct engine calls, inline arithmetic vs call-outs, the 2.40 m LDM divisor, 'no stackable flag = NOT stacked' logic, the distinction between palletSpaces (floor positions) and palletRows, partial-failure behavior via warnings, rate limiting with 429 handling, and camelCase vs snake_case legacy shape. This far exceeds what annotations convey.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is structured into clear paragraphs: overview, behavior, returns, limitations, related. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary technical details. No redundancy or filler.

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 params, nested objects, no output schema shown but a return shape described), the description covers everything the agent needs: what it does, how it behaves internally, how failures are surfaced, rate limits, the result envelope, limitations, and related tools. It is complete for safe selection and invocation.

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 adds meaning by grouping parameters (mode, items, origin/destination and incoterm refine duty) and explaining enabling conditions (un_number enables dangerous-goods section; hs_code + customs_value enables duty). This is helpful but the schema itself already describes each field well, so not a 5.

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 opens with a very specific composite analysis scope: volume, weights, LDM with pallet spaces and vehicle suggestion, volumetric weight, revenue tonnes with container suggestion, dangerous-goods presence, and UK duty estimates. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming the engines it calls (ldm_calculator, adr_lookup, uk_duty_calculator) and the canonical consignment_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 explains when to use this composite tool ('Composite shipment analysis in one call') and provides alternative tools in the Related section, explicitly stating which is canonical for snake_case line items (consignment_calculator) and which are single-purpose equivalents. It also notes limitations: 'a planning summary, not a quotation or compliance determination,' setting clear expectations.

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