get_rates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool performs live quoting, uses negotiated account prices, can filter by service code, does not book anything, and defaults origin to the configured ship-from address. It omits auth/rate-limit details, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the service_code clarification, no-booking warning, and origin default each add distinct value.

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 output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description covers the essential invocation semantics: quote-only behavior, service selection, and default origin. It could be more explicit about how optional dimensions interact with rating and how this tool relates to landed_cost, but it is sufficient for correct common use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the otherwise cryptic service_code parameter with concrete values (07, 65, 08, 11) and clarifies the origin default. It does not expand on required destination or weight parameters, but those names are fairly self-explanatory from 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 the tool gets live UPS shipping quotes for a lane, which is a specific verb plus resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on rate comparison rather than tracking or landed cost calculation.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool for quote-only UPS rates, optionally narrowed to one service code. It does not explicitly say when to prefer landed_cost or track_shipment, but the quote-centric phrasing and the 'nothing is booked' note make the intended use case unambiguous.

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