fmcsa_carrier_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation; the description adds behavioral context by enumerating the kind of data returned (safety rating, inspections, crash data, etc.). It does not disclose error behavior for invalid DOT numbers, but with the annotation covering the safety profile, this is acceptable and adds value beyond the annotation.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose (get full safety profile by DOT number), and the second efficiently lists the key data categories. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It lists the major response categories (safety rating, inspection results, crash data, driver counts, operational details), which gives the agent a good sense of what to expect. It does not specify error handling or response structure, but the tool's low complexity and rich annotations partially compensate.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (dot_number) with 'DOT number of the carrier', and the description also mentions 'by DOT number'. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for a well-covered 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'full safety profile for a motor carrier by DOT number'. It lists the types of information returned (safety rating, inspection results, crash data, driver counts, operational details), making the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from the sibling search tool fmcsa_carrier_search, which likely returns a list of carriers.

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 implies usage when you have a DOT number and need a detailed safety profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fmcsa_carrier_search. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., search first) or exclusion criteria, so the guidance is only implied rather than overt.

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