uld_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by stating that it returns dimensions, weights, volume, compatible aircraft, and deck position. This goes beyond annotations, providing behavioral insight into the output.

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. It starts with a short purpose statement, then a bullet list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: dimensions, weights, volume, compatible aircraft, and deck position. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities without needing further clarification.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context: for the 'type' parameter, it notes 'Omit to list all' and provides example codes (AKE, PMC). It also explains category and deck filters implicitly via the use cases. This additional clarity justifies a score above baseline.

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's purpose: looking up air freight ULD specifications. It lists specific use cases such as finding specs by IATA code, comparing container vs pallet types, and checking deck compatibility. This distinguishes it from siblings like container_lookup and pallet_fitting_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 when-to-use scenarios, including specific examples like 'Find ULD specs by IATA code' and 'Compare container vs pallet ULD types'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, which would have earned a higher score.

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