fmcsa_carrier_search

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by listing return fields (legal name, DBA, state, driver count, power units, safety rating) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose potential limitations such as result caps or pagination, but the read-only safety profile is already established by annotations, so the added detail is sufficient.

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 three concise sentences that front-load the main action and include only necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 search tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, search criteria, and return contents. It does not address edge cases like requiring at least one parameter or result limits, but these are not critical for a simple search operation.

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%, with each parameter (name, state, dot_number) having descriptive text. The description only restates these same search criteria without adding new meaning or clarifying constraints, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 searches FMCSA motor carriers by company name, DOT number, or state, and returns carrier profiles. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool fmcsa_carrier_detail, so it misses the differentiation element for a 5.

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 a clear use case ("Use to find trucking companies, bus companies, and other motor carriers") and lists the search criteria, giving the agent context for when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest an alternative like the detail tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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