list_freight_work_lines

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 mentions a cached set of 424 items and odcloud as a source, hinting at data retrieval, but does not state whether this is read-only, how pagination works, or what happens with filters. There is no explicit warning about side effects or data freshness.

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 compact, two sentences, with the core purpose and key filter front-loaded. The inclusion of 'total 424 items' and 'odcloud, full cache' adds some context but is not purely necessary; still, there is little wasted text.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the main content and a filter option, but misses typical operational details like response format, pagination behavior, and how limit interacts with the data. Without annotations, more could be done to make the tool fully self-explanatory.

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 explains that station_name supports partial-match filtering, adding meaning beyond the schema which has no descriptions (0% coverage). However, it says nothing about the limit parameter, its purpose (e.g., pagination or max results), or any constraints on station_name format. With low schema coverage, this partial compensation is insufficient but not negligible.

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 identifies the tool as providing freight loading work line information, including specific attributes (length, distance, fare calc distance, discounts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_loading_time_adjustment or list_standard_loading_time, relying instead on the distinctive name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the ability to filter by station name but does not state conditions for choosing this over other freight-related list tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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