Find Parcel Carriers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by specifying the search scope ('complete catalog') and the search keys (code/display name), plus a workflow hint. It does not discuss output format or pagination, but with annotations present, this is acceptable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every phrase contributes meaning: action, resource, search criteria, and workflow context. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations and schema, the description provides sufficient purpose and usage context. It could be more complete by explicitly naming the alternative sibling tool or describing the response format, but the current description is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'query' parameter implicitly by saying the search is by code or display name. However, 'limit' and 'response_format' are not elaborated; they are somewhat self-explanatory but the description does not fully carry the burden for all parameters.

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 uses specific language: 'Search the complete Parcel carrier catalog by code or display name before adding a delivery.' This clearly identifies the action (search), the resource (catalog), the scope (complete), and the search criteria (code/display name). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list_carriers by focusing on searching rather than listing.

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 usage context: 'before adding a delivery.' This implies the tool should be used as a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with parcel_list_carriers (the sibling that lists carriers) or state when to use one over the other, so it lacks exclusions.

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