search_consignment_change_per_wagon

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context that the data is a fixed local CSV with 6,681 records and describes the mapping/calculation basis, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any behavioral quirks like default limits.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the primary subject first. Both sentences add value—the first defines scope and data source, the second specifies filter options. No verbosity or redundant phrasing.

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 filter/search tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description gives the essential data content and filter params. However, it omits details on return format, limit semantics, and does not differentiate from the sibling tool. It is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of wagon_number and waybill_no as filters, matching the schema, but does not address the 'limit' parameter, leaving its role (pagination? cap?) undefined. This is partial compensation.

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's purpose: providing consignment change fee data per wagon, with mapping between instruction, waybill, and wagon numbers. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_consignment_change by explicitly focusing on 'per wagon' granularity, though it does not name the sibling directly.

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. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or contrast with search_consignment_change or other related tools. Agents must infer usage from the name alone.

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