Get transit time

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 hints at non-destructiveness via 'estimate', but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens for invalid postal codes. It also does not describe the output format, which is critical since no output schema exists. The only behavioral note is that service codes depend on the agreement, but that is more of a parameter constraint than a behavioral trait.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the note about service codes is placed right after, which is relevant. It is concise and to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., estimated days or a range), does not mention the optional dateOfDeparture parameter, and provides no guidance on error handling or edge cases. An agent would need to infer the output format or risk misinterpreting the result. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'so what'.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides an example service code (19) and explains that codes depend on the agreement, adding value. However, it does not explain the purpose of dateOfDeparture (though the schema includes its format and default) nor the postal code format. The country codes are self-evident from the enums. Overall, the description adds some meaning beyond the schema but does not fully cover the gaps.

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 function: estimating PostNord transit time between two postal codes for a given service code. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('transit time'), and the scope is well-defined. The siblings are about tracking and service points, so no confusion with them.

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 when to use this tool (when a transit time estimate is needed) and the context that service codes depend on the user's PostNord agreement. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tools are clearly distinct. It gives a practical example (service code 19) that helps an agent understand typical usage.

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