Tariff (Transport)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral context: it's read-only, details what the response includes, and specifies the 404 error condition for invalid tariff categories. No contradictions.

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 two-sentence description is efficient: first sentence states purpose and read-only nature, second sentence lists response components and usage. No wasted words; key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all key response elements (tariff level, activity status, dates, bonuses, prices, listing packages, etc.) and covers the error condition. This provides sufficient contextual completeness for a read-only info tool.

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 description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' which fully informs the agent given the input schema is empty (schema coverage 100%). No parameter details needed.

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 returns account tariff information for the Transport category, lists specific response contents (current/scheduled contracts, tariff level, etc.), and distinguishes it from CPA tariff with a note about 404 return. The name and title are aligned.

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 explicitly states 'Use it to check tariff terms and the remaining listing balance' and provides a clear condition: 'Available only for tariffs in the Transport category and not for the CPA tariff; otherwise it returns 404.' It does not compare to sibling tools, but the condition is sufficiently specific.

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